Historical Verification

[liamconnor]

I read again and again statements to the effect that the gospels relate "unverified stories".

This raises the question of what constitutes a "verified story". Obviously the criteria for ancient events will differ from current, and the majority of us here are interested in ancient events. So, let us leave out the miraculous. Let us take mundane historical claims, like the existence of two Roman soldiers mentioned only in Julius Caesar. Or if we want to bring the Bible into the mix, let's leave alone its miraculous claims and extract from them more mundane claims like, did "a" Jesus exist; or was 'a' Jesus crucified; did disciples of 'a' Jesus truly believe (i.e., no conspiracy theory; some strange psychology was at work) that they encountered their teacher after he was crucified and buried...?

how does one deem an ancient, mundane, historical claim as "verified"?


Does it entail the accumulation of independent witnesses? This seems to be the assumption of some members here, since they cast doubt on the very existence of "a" Jesus because he is mentioned outside of the N.T. only in a few (at best!) documents. But that indicates a very subjective criteria: how many independent witnesses do we need? Three? Four? A thousand? Who decides? Are such critics casting doubt on the existence of Lucius Voren and Titus Pollo because they are mentioned in only one document?

Or is historical verification far more nuanced a scientific endeavor? What does it take for you to believe a mundane historical claim?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Remember everyone,

the point of this thread is to present your criteria for historical verifiability.

everyone here apparently thinks they are good at history. So, let's show our historical skills by showing criteria for historical claims (non-miraculous).



I don't understand why there is a problem to the question...

I guess I can give an historical example: Why should I believe that Julius Caesar wasn't lying about the existence of two soldiers named Lucius and Pullo?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

I don't care what you believe.

What I care about is that my beliefs are not deemed ridiculous.


That is all.

I believe there are some non-supernatural explanations for the early Jesus movement.

I think they are unlikely.

I think the best explanation is that Jesus was actually raised from the death.

But there is one other explanation.

I am not trying to converty anyone.

But I do expect people to do good historical research.

disbelieve in Jesus' resurrection, great! but do so without pathetic use of the historical material, please!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

I don't care what you believe.

What I care about is that my beliefs are not deemed ridiculous.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and then flew away. How is that not the very definition of ridiculous?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

I believe there are some non-supernatural explanations for the early Jesus movement.

I think they are unlikely.

I think the best explanation is that Jesus was actually raised from the death.

Is the best explanation for the start of the Mormon religion that Joseph Smith REALLY was visited by angel(s)?
Why is it that the (for lack of a better word) 'magical' explanation somehow trumps the non-supernatural explanation?

I don't care what you believe.

What I care about is that my beliefs are not deemed ridiculous.

So YOU don't care what Z believes...but what you DO care about is that OTHERS not deem YOUR beliefs ridiculous.
So...you want others to respect your beliefs and not to think that your belief is ridiculous but you're not willing to care about other people's beliefs.

Hmm...

disbelieve in Jesus' resurrection, great! but do so without pathetic use of the historical material, please!

Are history departments around the world being 'pathetic' whenever they look into the matter? Go on, find me a history department at a college or university (preferably not a private Christian one) where the professor, in his/her class, teaches that the BEST or most likely explanation for the rise of Christianity...is that a corpse came back to life, spoke to his followers and then subsequently levitated off of the ground and disappeared into the sky.

What constitutes 'pathetic use' of the historical material? Seems to me that you're calling those who don't believe your preferred explanation 'pathetic'...simply because they don't believe your preferred explanation.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by liamconnor]

But All of this doesn't follow.

It doesn't follow that a corpse reanimated from a state of death after having been such for three days simply because a small group of people, who are unidentified, write down that it happened, multiple decades after the 'event' in question.

I was never out to find my soul; to find salvation.

I like to now whether a thing happened.

I doubt this. The problem here is that recently, some Christians on this site have, in their arguments, promoted books by characters such as Lee Strobel, who claim to have looked at the case in an intellectual, legal light.
Only they don't.

And I believe Jesus' resurrection happened.

As I have said MANY a time on this site, I do not give one whif what it is you believe. I care about what it is you are able to give evidence for. You could be believing this thing for good reason or for bad reasons, and I highly suspect that you have bad reasons.

I make no claim that this event will save your soul...

If one reads the New Testament, especially Paul, that is indeed what is claimed. Something on the order of one's immortal soul being in danger if one doesn't believe Jesus rose from the dead.

I simply believe that this belief (Jesus' resurrection) is not intellectually bogus.

Then, outside of Christianity and the Bible, can you point to ANY OTHER resurrections, shown to be such beyond a shadow of a doubt (since a resurrection is just about one of the most extraordinary claims one could make, and thus, requires extraordinary evidence)?
You might as well be saying that believing that King David rode around on a T-Rex is not intellectually bogus.

If I can get you to accept that the resurrection of Jesus is a possible solution to the historical problem, yet you remain a non-Christian, I will be happy.

I need to know that resurrections can indeed even happen in the first place, and no, a bunch of people with a clear bias towards believing it and promoting belief in a specific resurrection event is not enough.
Especially when the level of evidence you extend would require me (in the interest of consistency) to believe in mutually exclusive claims.

I give you a counter example.
Is it possible that King David rode around on a T-Rex?

[Zzyzx]

.

Didn't answer my question.

How do you verify an historical claim? What is your methodology?

The ONLY historical accounts I verify are those I claim are truthful. For those I provide multiple, disconnected sources of information that support what I say -- and in many cases point to actual physical evidence.

For instance, when I refer to WWII as an actual event that occurred in the real world, I can provide overwhelming evidence from worldwide sources that leave no sane person with doubt that it occurred. As an aside, I was alive at the time, though young enough to have only vague memory of related events.

When mentioning ancient events, I typically qualify my statements to avoid appearance of claims of truth -- with terminology such as 'It is said (or reported) that . . ', or 'Historians tell us that . . .', or 'Accounts indicate that . . . '. Occasionally I may neglect to include the qualifiers, but if challenged will add them.

This practice removes any claim of knowledge that I do not possess -- and making statements of 'truth' that I could not verify / defend.

And, NOTHING in my position rests upon ancient tales being true. My decisions, actions, statements are NOT dependent upon ancient tales -- but are based on real-world information.

By contrast, Theist positions DO rest upon ancient tales being true. AND they often make statements claiming knowledge, such as 'God said . . .' or 'The resurrection is true' -- with NO qualifiers -- presented as FACT -- when all they have for 'evidence' are unverifiable Bible tales. They cannot show that the tales are true.

The Theist position, stories, claims may seem compelling in revival meetings, church camps, or 'Christians only' environments. However, as is quite evident in these threads, they do NOT hold up to the scrutiny of debate environments.

Even well schooled Theist debaters cannot defend claims of truth. A recent example is a claim to know 'God's goal'. When asked 'How do you (or anyone) KNOW 'God's goal?' there is no straight-forward answer.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by liamconnor]

I didn't answer a single question you asked for?
Certainly I did, by example - didn't you click the link?

How does one verify history?
Bias.
Multiple sources.

Xenophon is a beautiful story-teller, magnificent writer, but he placed himself at the center of it all - he lied.
But we were able to find out the events he described, happened as described - just that his role was not as profound? How?
Hmmmmm...

Does this answer the questions?

[bluethread]

.

Or is historical verification far more nuanced a scientific endeavor?

It is not a scientific endeavor. Scientific speculations may provide certain clues. However, history, especially when it involves a singular event, is beyond science's ability to verify.

Okay, exactly WHAT means can be used to determine if an ancient story or account is true and accurate?

This is NOT asking for 'scientific' means -- but ANY means by which truth and accuracy can be determined for ANY ancient tale.

Well, verification of past events is always a matter of best guess. There are artifacts and scientific speculation with regard to them. However, there are also literary and cultural factors. Verification is a rational function. One can limit oneself to scientific rationalism, but then one is only talking about scientific verification. As I stated, such verification is of limited value when it comes to specific events and the further one gets from those events, the more speculative that becomes. If one examines and compares the records of the time and culture, one can combine that with information derived from scientific experimentation to increase ones assurance with regard to the truth and accuracy of the events.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by bluethread]

Well, verification of past events is always a matter of best guess. There are artifacts and scientific speculation with regard to them. However, there are also literary and cultural factors. Verification is a rational function. One can limit oneself to scientific rationalism, but then one is only talking about scientific verification. As I stated, such verification is of limited value when it comes to specific events and the further one gets from those events, the more speculative that becomes. If one examines and compares the records of the time and culture, one can combine that with information derived from scientific experimentation to increase ones assurance with regard to the truth and accuracy of the events.

Are we to assume this beautiful narrative is why you believe in miracles vice people making up miracles as stories?
Because documentation becomes less reliable?

Odd, I would, and do, reach the opposite conclusions. Besides, history isn't as vague as all that...

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, verification of past events is always a matter of best guess.

EXACTLY

Therefore, we have only a 'best guess' and NOT assurance that Bible tales about 'resurrection' are true.

There are artifacts and scientific speculation with regard to them.

Are there artifacts to verify ANY 'miracle' tales used by Christianity to claim 'divinity' for Jesus?

However, there are also literary and cultural factors.

What 'literary and cultural factors' can be used to verify tales of 'resurrection' and 'miracles'?

Verification is a rational function.

Yes, verification should be rational, and not emotional.

One can limit oneself to scientific rationalism, but then one is only talking about scientific verification.

Here we are to be discussing verification that need not be scientific. Carry on.

As I stated, such verification is of limited value when it comes to specific events and the further one gets from those events, the more speculative that becomes.

EXACTLY -- speculation. Therefore, those who tell stories and make claims about 'resurrection' and 'miracles' are speculating but usually pretending to speak factually.

If one examines and compares the records of the time and culture,

What 'records of the time and culture' verify Gospel tales of 'resurrection' and 'miracles'?

Unless those tales are true, Christianity is worthless (as Paul/Saul indicated) and based on fraud

one can combine that with information derived from scientific experimentation to increase ones assurance with regard to the truth and accuracy of the events.

Agreed -- if such items and information are available, they can increase assurance.