Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:19 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How about you list what these "other documents" are in which there is no embellishment.

For what purpose?

This ain't dodgeball. Put up or shut up.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-07-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support.

Moving on ...

"
[i]Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support."[/i]

There is lots of evidence that Paul never knew Jesus or Jesus' ghost. If you're genuinely interested in discussing this, I'll present it.

He isn't. We got us a True Believer here. A waste of keystrokes with this one.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
02-07-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:34 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  So you claim I dodged something, and then claim I addressed it, but still claim I dodged it?

I am as fluent in slang as anyone else, and I must say, what the fuck?

You dodged my initial point about whether he would have been working from records. Then you addressed it in a second post by showing where Tacitus frequently stated a distinction between the two types.

No.

If you would have actually looked at my reply you would have noticed a formatting error regarding quotes, and seen the error and also seen I address your position in its entirety.



Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You've expressed an opinion here with no evidence for support. I will show you the text from Tacitus and explain something to you that is exceptionally obvious about it all. I will show you textual evidence to support my position, where you have provided none to support yours.

Annals 15.44

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea,"

Wait, are you trying to imply that I hadn't read the passage? WTF?

You may have read it, but you didn't textually excavate it. In short, you didn't fully understand what was actually there to see, and instead only read the words.

Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  1. The first thing that is clearly obvious is that Tacitus is writing Roman history.

That is not "clearly obvious". He is explaining that Christians got their name from a "Christus" and what their origins are. Whether or not some distant regional governor killed their cult leader would have been peanuts to him. He is indeed writing Roman history, but it is the history of Nero's actions in Rome, and the detail of whom the Christians are is not critical enough to merit more than a description.

So firstly, according to your reasoning- or lack thereof- it is not obvious that a proud Roman statesman and revered historian is writing Roman history for the Roman population?

Then secondly you say, "He is indeed writing Roman history?"

So either it is obvious that he is writing Roman history, or it is not obvious he is writing Roman history. Which is it?

In addition to that, you are merely speculating with an un-sourced opinion, and then you are attempting to diminish the importance of Pilate while referring to him as" some distant regional governor" while miserably attempting to convince me that that is what Tacitus actually thought about Pilate?

Tacitus by no means referred to Pilate as some "distant regional governor." You are attempting to put words into his mouth that do not exist.

Then you assert again that you seem to understand that Tacitus was someone completely detached from the question of the Christians by asserting "the detail of whom the Christians are is not critical enough to merit more than a description," yet you fail to acknowledge that the entire paragraph is all about the numerous tortures Nero places on these Christians, whom you claim are "not critical enough to merit more than a description?"

If they are not critical enough to merit more than a description? as you say, then why does Tacitus go into such detail about their persecutions and tortures?

No, he says much more than a description about who they were.

Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. The next thing is that he described the Christians as "a class hated for their abominations." So the question you need to answer is whether or not a highly respected statesman and historian such as Tacitus would go to "a class hated for their abominations" to glean information pertaining to Roman history. Keep in mind Tacitus is NOT writing Christian history, but Roman history.

Tacitus was writing a century after Jesus' death. We have examples of early Christian writers telling the Emperors of the day that the Christians do not, as alleged, actually commit incest, cannibalism, or other barbarisms to which the Romans assigned them. Tacitus did, however, research cults of Rome. Since the Christians were the ones Nero blamed for the fires (either to cover his own actions or just as general scapegoats), it was necessary to explain how they ended up in Rome in the first place. Of course he'd find out and know who the Christians actually claimed to be, as he did with the other cults. In this case, a bit of his knowledge was relevant to why this group was there to be targeted by Nero.

This is nothing more than an apologetic, and does nothing to address my point. You have in no way whatsoever countered my point that Tacitus would not glean his information for Roman history from any dialogue he had with the Christians amounting to hearsay. You have provided no supporting evidence to validate any of your claims above, and are again merely asserting with no support whatsoever.

Quote:[quote]
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  3. The fact that Tacitus mentions a high ranking Roman official such as Pilate, and of all people Caesar Tiberius, within the very context of Christ and the Christians not only supports the obvious fact that he is writing Roman history and not repeating hearsay from a hated class, but also we must consider that if Tacitus was writing false history about Christ and the Christians, then his mentioning of how the Caesar and Pilate were involved would also be false Roman history.

If this bit of Roman history of Pilate and Tiberius was false, why do we not see anyone else correcting Tacitus in antiquity? That is evidence we should expect if it were true, but that evidence doesn't exist.

Why would anyone in Rome, reading this, care? Only the Christians would, and they wouldn't quibble with his passage, no matter how he described them. The passage suffices to explain why the Christians were in Rome and being persecuted. Any further discussion would be important only to Christians.

Does nothing to counter the point, and also if your position about Christians not quibbling actually did have merit, then how do you explain the numerous apologetic texts from the early church fathers who existed previously, during, and immediately after the time of Tacitus, and who vigorously defended their faith by attempting to counter anything they felt was inaccurate?

And why do we not see from the non-Christian antagonists in antiquity living after Tacitus saying anything to counter Tacitus's positive claim that Christ, of whom the Christians were named after, was executed by Pilate, indicating his actual existence?

No one in antiquity questioned the existence of this Jesus as being, at the very least, an ordinary man. In fact, we have texts from non Christian antagonists who chastise the Christians for embellishing the life of Jesus instead of respecting him as being but a mere man.

Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  4. And finally, you will not find one single Christian document in existence which details anything about what Tacitus said about the persecution of the Christians under Nero, which demonstrates that there is no evidence to support that Tacitus gleaned this information from Christians.

Wut? What type of document would we expect, on this? You're alleging that since no Christians countermanded Nero's accurate description of what they claimed, or what happened to them under Nero, that he must have been working from official documents rather than just finding out what the sect believed/claimed?

Yes, exactly. We do not find a Christian source that has the information that Tacitus used regarding Christ, and the persecution of the Christians. This indicates that Tacitus did not use Christian sources for this, which adds to the credulity that his sources were exclusively Roman, and specifically, Roman written sources.

Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now that is actual evidence we can see within the context, and no speculation is required. We are speaking about a Roman Historian who was writing Roman history, and just because you see something about Christ and the Christians in his works by no means gives you any reason whatsoever to believe that Tacitus is somehow writing Christian history into his Roman history book.

That is utterly ridiculous, and refuted by the actual available evidence. It would appear to me, and most historians for that matter, that the argument that Tacitus used Christian history instead of Roman history is a desperate attempt to simply make the reality of confirmation of the existence of Jesus to go away.

It is neither ridiculous nor refuted. Your "evidence" is an inference that because it was the usual practice of Tacitus, when writing about the actions of an Emperor, to carefully document what he could or specify when passing on rumor, that the same standard would apply to a passing comment explaining the origin of the Christians being persecuted. That Tacitus would have even considered it "Christian history", rather than a simple side-detail in the broader context of the actions of the Emperor.

All he is doing in that passage is saying, "They call themselves Christians because of a guy they call Christ. Apparently one of our provincial governors killed the dude." before moving on to the actual meat of the story, which is that they were used as a scapegoat and political distraction for the emperor he's documenting.

Again you are attempting to misrepresent the text by using such words as "Apparently" and inserting an interpretation of the text as meaning, "They call themselves Christians because of a guy they call Christ."

"They" is not in the text. The text clearly says, "called Christians by the populace." He is telling you that the Roman population calls them Christians, and not that the Christians themselves said anything at all in that respect. He is again using the ROMAN perspective to describe the origin of the Christians, and literally tells you that explicitly.


Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Or it is exactly what I demonstratedit was; Tacitus used the consensus of previous Roman historians and their historical records. If their records entitled Pilate as a Procurator, then that explains it. If the consensus was that Pilate was a Procurator, then that is what Pilate's title was known to be at the time of the previous historians writings.

It is indeed possible that Tacitus was working from documents that mention what a Christian is, such as Acta Senatus or the Acta Diurna (a sort of "daily newspaper"), but it doesn't explain how the documentarian of the trial at the time would get the title wrong. It's easy to understand how someone writing down the Christian claim years after the fact could get it wrong, since about a decade after the alleged execution the title of the governors of Judea was Procurator. Before that it was not even legal, and would not have been recorded as Pr.

You are still of the mind that someone wrote down what the Christians claimed, despite the fact that I pointed to direct evidence that he used numerous written materials for his works, and I also directly pointed to him the Roman perspective by his use of "populace" directly within the same sentence as Christ and the Christians.

He tells us that they were called Christians by the Roman population, and not by the Christians themselves.

Quote:It is evidence that there is no timely (direct) evidence being employed.

The evidence is within the text, and is very obvious.

Quote:
(02-07-2016 09:36 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are imposing your view upon Tacitus, and providing no evidence to support it. This is just an unsubstantiated and unqualified opinion and can be dismissed.

So I'm pulling it out of my ass, am I? Can you explain that to Robert van Voorst, professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, and Paul Mirecki, former head of the Religious Studies department at the University of Kansas? (In personal discussions with the latter, I learned this information and was referred to some of the writings of the former.)

It doesn't matter who's view you share, for all the matters is what can be demonstrated as having merit via evidence. It's one thing to assert something, but it's entirely different to back it up with corroborating evidence.

Quote:The rest is your invention and assumption, while mine is a simpler explanation per Occam's Razor.

Your misuse of Occam's Razor must necessarily ignore actual evidence in existence.

It fails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:35 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:31 AM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  You aren't getting any easier to follow as time and posts go on.

Perhaps the following link will enable you a greater understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

You are confused. The historicity of Jesus is questionable due to the absence of evidence for it.
There is simply nothing credible- no eyewitness accounts, no contemporary documents, no artifacts.

You seem to assume it is history and (wrongly) demand that it be disproven. You haven't provided enough evidence to support your assertion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-07-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 11:04 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  So, let's take you to task and be more precise.

1. Do you believe that the Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate was Jesus of Nazareth, who's life was embellished by the Christians, and therefore subsequently became the centerpiece of the Christian religion?

2. You said that what Tacitus wrote about the Christians was factual, but do you agree that what he wrote about Christ was also factual?

And that is my "fucking point."

Big Grin

My statements are clear enough. Quit dodging.

No they are not, now stop dodging them and answer them.

Unless of course you have something to hide?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
02-07-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:35 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Perhaps the following link will enable you a greater understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

You are confused. The historicity of Jesus is questionable due to the absence of evidence for it.
There is simply nothing credible- no eyewitness accounts, no contemporary documents, no artifacts.

You seem to assume it is history and (wrongly) demand that it be disproven. You haven't provided enough evidence to support your assertion.

I don't assume anything. It is the consensus of qualified historians who have reviewed all the available evidence, and I agree with them because i also have reviewed all the available evidence.

And don't forget that Paul was a contemporary when wrote his view of Jesus, and tells us he was crucified. It matters not if he ever met the man or not, because it changes absolutely nothing about him being a contemporary.

Jesus of Nazareth was most likely a historical person, and he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. There is more than enough evidence to support that high degree of probability, and absolutely no direct evidence against it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  An accusation of a sock puppet is nothing but an act of desperation. You have no good argument, so you then proceed to get rid of the person who bests you in a debate.

Big Grin

You fit the pattern- including the fact that a "newbie" already knows exactly what "sock" refers to. We trounce one poster, who then shows back up under a new name and proceeds to make the same sorts of arguments. It's worth investigating.

Frankly, I'm enjoying the discussion, with the exception of your particular tone, which reminds me of previous discussions I've had on this subject. I simply want to ensure I'm not playing ring around the rosie, so to speak.

I have been on various forums for 2 decades, so the word "sock" is well known to me. Some of the more militant atheist forums wrongly accuse people such as myself as being a sock, just to appease the idiots who couldn't offer up a decent debate.

It's very easy for the moderators to confirm or deny the claim, if they haven't already.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:32 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 09:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Not sure if you are learning disabled, but once again, I never said a physical man named jesus didnt exist. Whether or not he did doesn't matter. no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him. All based on stories, and people love to tell stories, especially those with magic, zombies and dragons in them. Not even Paul had met jesus....urban myth is a powerful phenomenon isnt it?

My question was in regards to a particular Jesus known as Jesus of Nazareth upon whom the Christian religion is based upon. That was exceptionally obvious within the context.

You claim that there were numerous people named Jesus who were crucified at that time.

Please find me documentation to prove that position.

Good luck.

Smile

What is exceptionally obvious is your lack of academic education on theology, NT, and historicity of jesus. Don't make me beat you with the knowledge stick child. Did I imply more than one jesus was nailed to a piece of wood like an insignificant thief? no.

What I state, and can back up categorically, is no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him. So all of the "jesus said, and jesus did" stories are based on hearsay by non-eyewitnesses. Ever played the telephone game child? Your anthropocentric perspective of a transcendental super genie and his alleged halfling spawn "false messiah" whose legend was the basis of later hubris theological pseudepigrapha driven fantasies about incarnation and atonement does not impress me as it is without evidence.. Faith, the belief in something without evidence is what you cling to like a stripper to her favorite pole. Research, trace the story back to its authorship, see the relation to older Sumerian, Crete and Greek myths that all of the major biblical stories are based upon, think, and evolve beyond the Fiction, Fantasy and Forgery that makeup the Christian cult. Endeavor to learn child, and stumble down the epistemological path to truth. Let me know when you think you have learned a few things before you bother to waste my fucking time with your amateur and childlike understanding of the subject at hand.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
02-07-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 12:48 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 11:04 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  My statements are clear enough. Quit dodging.

No they are not, now stop dodging them and answer them.

I did not dodge. I made my statement. It was clear and it addressed the issues you are arguing about.

You, sir, are lying.

(02-07-2016 12:48 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Unless of course you have something to hide?

I go to great lengths to post both accurately and consistently. While there are valid reasons to defend arguments contrary to one's own position, I refrain from doing so because online it is likely to generate confusion. If I were to do so in the future, I would ensure that I made my actual beliefs clear in regards to the argument in question.

It is my opinion that you are posting dishonestly. You have made claims in regards to your belief that are refuted by your arguments and word choice. You have claimed knowledge of history, logical discussion and theology that have been soundly refuted, by others as well as your own posts.

I asked you to make your point. In light of your replies, I retract that request.

In lieu of your repeated and consistent dishonesty, I don't see why I should care about your points or conversation.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-07-2016, 01:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-07-2016 10:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 10:36 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I haven't seen Tomato around in a minute. Can someone check for socks?

...... get rid of the person who bests you in a debate.

Big Grin

Laugh out load

I have been at this a long time my ineducable tyro xtian friend, and I have never lost a debate. Many have tried, and all have lost. This is because they are at a distinct disadvantage...they believe in magic, and cling to faith as the basis of their belief and understanding of history. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. I am at an advantage, I have 30+ years of study, research, and academic education in the field, and most importantly, I have facts, and evidence on my side. You impress no one, and do not have the requisite intellect, knowledge or comprehension level to best anyone here in a debate. Here are some facts for you to marinate over...no need to thank me, educating theists on their religion is what I do.

Moses never existed.

No one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him.

The Exodus never happened.

The mythical global flood of 2349 BCE never happened.

The synoptic gospels were not written by their namesakes, and are pseudonymous works.

Now run along and go learn a few things and come back when you are ready to challenge me. You stumbled into theTHINKINGatheist, and I am sure you thought you were going to come in here and teach us heathens a thing or two....silly. You know why we are experts in theology? Because we have studied it, read the bible, applied analysis and comparative studies to the OT, NT and the story of jesus. You need to go back to the kiddy table where you can impress them with stories of magic.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: