History versus Theology

[Divine Insight]

Recently several theists have been attempting to use the Bible as "historical evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. However, according to historians this is not valid historical methodology.

There are things in history that we can know (with a fair degree of confidence), however there are other things they may have even actually occurred historically that we can never know. From a historical perspective it is important to recognize and acknowledge which is which.

Also, written accounts found from ancient sources are no guarantee that the accounts written about actually happened. So to automatically assume that just because something was historically written it must have then happened is not a valid form of doing history. The accounts from ancient Greece about the Greek Gods are a very good example. No one believes that those accounts necessarily happened as described. Instead they are seen as accounts that people either made up, or believed to have experience as some sort of vision or hallucination. Just because a person writes down a story doesn't make it historically true. This is why historians prefer to have multiple accounts from independent and preferably non-biased sources. And even then there's no guarantee that the stories represent actual historical truth since they could just be repeated rumors.

The following is an interview with a historian/theologian, who gives a historical account of the possible life of Jesus. His account here is a historical one, not a theological view. I present this here for those who might be interested.

[youtube][/youtube]

Notice that from a historical perspective all that can be said is that there where historical claims that people supposedly saw a risen Jesus. The historian can only work with this information. These accounts could have been total fabrications for all the historian knows. All the historian can know is that someone made these claims. The historian cannot assume with confidence that the people who made these claims actually saw what they claim to have seen. The historians must recognize the very real possibility that these people were having some sort of vision or hallucination, or even fabricating their experiences entirely. That's certainly within the bounds of known human behavior.

The historian is not going to assume that supernatural events that are outside the boundaries of our everyday experience must have historically occurred just because someone in history claimed they occurred. As I had stated previously, if historians did this then we'd have no choice but to accept that all the stories of the Greek Gods are then necessarily all historically true as well. Not to mention every God and Goddess that was ever written about by anyone throughout all of history.

So it's not even reasonable for historians to assume that just because someone writes about a supernatural event that it necessarily actually happened. For this reason it makes no sense to claim that there exists "historical Evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus (or any other supernatural claims of any historical Gods, Goddesses or Demigods.)

So these "Historical Arguments" for the resurrection of Jesus are not valid. They are simply not in line with doing history proper.

What about Theology?

Theology is a faith-based study. The theologian accepts (without sufficient evidence) that stories of Gods or demigods are true. This is not a historical approach to the subject. It's a theological approach based on faith that the stories are literally true and not just someone's imagination, vision, hallucination, wishful thinking or outright fabrication.

This is a step beyond what a historian would ever take.

Theology is fine as long as the theologian understands that theology is indeed faith-based and does not constitute history proper.

The historian is perfectly justified in concluding that claims of having seen a risen God or Demigod may very well have been fictional stories, or visions. In fact, considering all the different religions ever recorded in history it makes sense that the overwhelming majority of such historical accounts are necessarily either fabricated or some sort of hallucination.

So a theologian not only needs to accept a "God Story" on faith, but the theologian must also choose which "God Story" they are going to place their faith in since there are clearly many different "God Stories" to choose from throughout history.

So I would just like to clarify the different between doing history proper and choosing to take a faith-based theological position on a particular religion.

Theologians need to recognize and acknowledge that their beliefs are indeed faith-based and quit trying to argue with non-theologians that the faith-based beliefs of the theist must be accepted by everyone as being confirmed history.

That is simply not the case.

I was originally going to post this in Christianity and Apologetics, but since I have no question for debate I've decided to post this in General Chat. If you disagree with my above thesis you are more than welcome to voice your views. However, as I see it, what I have presented above is generally accepted by professional historians and theologians in general.

The only people who would be an exception to this would be amature theologians are aren't willing to accept that their views are faith-based and are trying to make a case that their faith-based beliefs are actually supported by historical evidence.

I think it should be obvious that this is not a valid argument. All it amounts to is amateur theists trying to proclaim that their faith-based beliefs are not faith-based at all but instead they are historical conclusions that every rational person must accept.

That is absolute nonsense and is not even remotely in harmony with how proper history is conducted.

Your views may vary, but I can't see where anyone could make a case for theology being the same as history. Theology is based on faith. History is based on evidence. And there is no evidence that supernatural stories of Gods and Goddesses are anything more than the wishful thinking of humans. History actually shows us that humans have been making up stories about Gods and Goddesses from the dawn of human civilization. So there is no credible reason to just single out one of these stories and claim that it represents "Actual History" whilst dismissing all the other historical God Stories as just "myths".

Keep in mind that this is posted in General Chat. Your comments are welcome but there is no invite to debate this here. If you would like to debate this specific topic you are more than welcome to start a debate thread in a debate forum.

[JoeyKnothead]

History's the stuff that did happen, theology's the stuff that didn't.