(February 12, 2015 at 4:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: I really don't think he understands the difference. I thought he was being awkward before, but I really am worried he honestly doesn't understandI don't know what to do.
I do understand the difference. However, for historical figures/teachings/events, all we have are people's writings and therefore what they believed to be true. Of course they can be wrong. Historians look for evidence within each author's writings and other author's writings and construct a likely scenario. There is no such thing as proof--only evidence. And most readers of the evidence insert their bias into the conclusions. Your bias is naturalism and in a subject like religion and events shaping religion, you have already removed an entire set of possibilities that others are not so quick to remove from consideration.
