Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 08:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  In principle, no. However, on the Jesus question neither side has sufficient evidence.

Does each side have an equivalent amount of weak evidence? Does one side have considerably more than the other or not?

It doesn't matter; neither side has a compelling argument.

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
04-07-2016, 08:38 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 08:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does each side have an equivalent amount of weak evidence? Does one side have considerably more than the other or not?

It doesn't matter; neither side has a compelling argument.

I decide what questions matter.


So you can't answer whether one side has more weak evidence in support of it than the other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I decide what questions matter.

Blink

For everyone or just for you?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 08:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't matter; neither side has a compelling argument.

I decide what questions matter.


So you can't answer whether one side has more weak evidence in support of it than the other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Translation: "I'm dishonest to the point that I will literally admit to not answering questions I don't want to and I'm not going to tell you why. Only that these questions I don't answer or address 'don't matter.' And that could mean fucking anything. Maybe the question traps me with my own shit logic. Maybe it points out my dishonesty or lying. Maybe it exposes my ignorance. Maybe it would make me look even dumber for answering. Who knows?!"

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-07-2016, 08:50 AM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:45 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I decide what questions matter.

Blink

For everyone or just for you?


For me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2016 08:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't matter; neither side has a compelling argument.

I decide what questions matter.


So you can't answer whether one side has more weak evidence in support of it than the other?

Can't? No, can't be bothered to.
When each side's evidence is considered, it comes up short.
There is no need to compare them; it is pointless.

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
04-07-2016, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016 11:32 AM by Chas.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
duplicate

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
04-07-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 10:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  X WRONG X

Any evidence that can demonstrate your claim?

No?

Okay we are done here, since I have provided plenty of evidence to support Tacitus sourcing information on the great fires of Rome from previously written records, and you have provided absolutely nothing.

Moving on ...

There is no evidence of the record of which you speak. None.

1.Evidence has been provided in abundance which demonstrates that Tacitus was meticulously and continuously using previously written Roman historical records, letters, official Roman records.

2. Textual analysis strongly indicates that Tacitus would have needed to access records regarding Pilate, Tiberius, and the Christians in order for him to chronicle a time-line and provide such details of these persons and events.

3. In the very first paragraph of Chapter 15, which is the beginning of the story concerning the fires of Rome, Pilate, Christ, et al , Tacitus reveals that he is using previously written Roman historical accounts, and he reveals it again in 15.45 with the words of "According to some writers, poison was prepared ..." just one paragraph away (and is a continuation of the story regarding the fires) from Pilate, Christ et all in 15.44. He also reveals within chapter 15 that he is accessing the official Roman records, with two instances of that in paragraphs 15.73 and 15.74.

So yes, from the very beginning, and then directly within the context of the story regarding the fires, there is an abundance of evidence to support that Tacitus was using previously written Roman source materials regarding the fires of Rome, which is inclusive of Pilate, Tiberius, Christ, and the Christians.

This argument has evidence for support. The hearsay argument has no evidence for support.


Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  He is specifically talking about his work, and that IS the context.

Moving on ...

Well, just hold up there, bub. He is talking about his work. Let's take a closer look at what he actually says before we "move on":

[4.10] In relating the death of Drusus I have followed the narrative of most of the best historians. But I would not pass over a rumour of the time, the strength of which is not even yet exhausted. Sejanus, it is said, having seduced Livia into crime, next secured, by the foulest means, the consent of Lygdus, the eunuch, as from his youth and beauty he was his master's favourite, and one of his principal attendants. When those who were in the secret had decided on the time and place of the poisoning, Sejanus, with the most consummate daring, reversed his plan, and, whispering an accusation against Drusus of intending to poison his father, warned Tiberius to avoid the first draught offered him as he was dining at his son's house. Thus deceived, the old emperor, on sitting down to the banquet, took the cup and handed it to Drusus. His suspicions were increased when Drusus, in perfect unconsciousness, drank it off with youthful eagerness, apparently, out of fear and shame, bringing on himself the death which he had plotted against his father.

[4.11] These popular rumours, over and above the fact that they are not vouched for by any good writer, may be instantly refuted. For who, with moderate prudence, far less Tiberius with his great experience, would have thrust destruction on a son, without even hearing him, with his own hand too, and with an impossibility of returning to better thoughts. Surely he would rather have had the slave who handed the poison, tortured, have sought to discover the traitor, in short, would have been as hesitating and tardy in the case of an only son hitherto unconvicted of any crime, as he was naturally even with strangers. But as Sejanus had the credit of contriving every sort of wickedness, the fact that he was the emperor's special favourite, and that both were hated by the rest of the world, procured belief for any monstrous fiction, and rumour too always has a dreadful side in regard to the deaths of men in power. Besides, the whole process of the crime was betrayed by Apicata, Sejanus's wife, and fully divulged, under torture, by Eudemus and Lygdus. No writer has been found sufficiently malignant to fix the guilt on Tiberius, though every circumstance was scrutinized and exaggerated. My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance.

(Emphasis my own.) He tells an entire story about a rumor, which he points out logically cannot be the way the rumors claim, and then explicitly states what the object of his refutation is: to put down hearsay versions of the tale of the death of Drusus so that those who read his work would not buy into the "perverted into romance" version of the story. There is no allusion whatsoever to anything else outside of this tale. I cannot believe you would be so dishonest as to claim otherwise.

The point of his statement is not only in reference to the story above, as it is obvious that he is making a general statement that his work, in its entirety, is based upon genuine history as opposed to conjecture and rumour.

If it would be ridiculous to think that Tacitus' comments above regarding genuine history and rumours would only apply to those mere few lines of text within the whole of Annals. Should we then somehow think that his standard of not using rumours in his works doesn't apply to the rest of Annals?

Think this through ...

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Exactly!

He didn't say it, but he would have to know it, so how did he know it?

Hints ...

"during the reign of Tiberius ..."

(he knew Pilate was Governor during the reign of Tiberius. This means he checked the records for a time-line to see when Pilate was a Governor)

"a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ..."

(He knew a mischievous evil superstition resulted from the execution of Christ, which is not something that would be described to him in that way by any Christian. He also knew that the superstition began in Judea, and then traveled to Rome, indicating that he checked records for the sequence of events in which the superstition first broke out in Judea, and then afterwards it broke out in Rome.)

Even if a Christian told him, "Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate," Tacitus would still need to look up records on Pontius Pilate to find out where Pilate was stationed, and when he was stationed there, otherwise he would not have been able to say "during the reign of Tiberius."

Tacitus knew that Pilate was governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius, and that a mischevious superstition broke out in Judea that ended up in Rome. How and where could Pilate get these details which all surround the crucifixion of Christ?

From hearsay of the Christians? Can you imagine a Christian telling Tacitus, "Yeah, Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and after he was crucified we started this mischievous evil superstition in Judea and it traveled all the way to Rome!"

You're claiming, now, that a Senator of Rome who wrote about the Emperors didn't know when Tiberius reigned?

That's my point. He would need to know "when." He would also need to know "when" Pilate was governor so that he could place Pilate within the reign if Tiberius.

Quote:Christian Gospels (and those Christians re-telling the stories of the Gospels) openly claim that Pilate was the governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius. All it would take would have been for him to hear that they made the claim, or read their literature, all of which would have been part of his job as a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis.

Only one instance mentioning Tiberius exists in the Gospel, in Luke 3.1. The Bible itself didn't even exist as a bible at the time of Tacitus.

In addition to that, being a Christian and propagating their literature was a serious crime at the time of Tacitus. Therefore, to assert that Tacitus was propagating Christian history as if it were Roman history would have undoubtedly resulted in his arrest as a traitor to the Roman Empire.

It is completely unreasonable- particularly to the very well learned of the subject- to expect that a highly respected and high ranking Roman official would openly and daringly propagate the literature of a hated enemy by passing it off as genuine Roman history.

But there is no evidence that Tacitus did any of that, and subsequently no evidence of any arrest of him by Roman authorities for high treason, nor even a hint of any accusation against him.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If his use of written source materials in Annals and Histories is any indication of how he did his research, then he would undoubtedly use the same approach if he ever investigated local cults.

Or he could talk to members of those cults, people who interact with members of those cults, and read the scriptures of those cults, as we do when investigating cults, today. Simply copying down what others wrote about the cults wouldn't be very good investigation, now, would it?

No evidence of this in relation to Christus.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  See? You just did it again. Your cherry picked all the text surrounding Christ and pulled it away and agree that "this is the part he likely got from records." And the only part left over is the part that mentioned Christ.

So why wouldn't he have also gotten all this as hearsay from Christians too? Using your reasoning, every last thing he recorded as Roman history concerning the Christians could just be Christian hearsay, so why stop at just the mention of Christ?

Um, wut?

That's not using my reasoning at all, or any reasoning I can distinguish. As I have been ENDLESSLY SAYING, there is a distinction between the claim "there were records of the fire and the events surrounding it" and "there were records of Pilate's execution of Jesus in Judea". That's the kind of thing that led me to call you "dense".

The "reports" I mention (and which Tacitus writes about, there) are of the fire, and who was blamed for it. Some blamed Nero, others did not. But it was apparently an issue for Nero that he was being blamed, so, "consequently, to get rid of the reports..."

Tacitus read both sets of reports, and tries to tell the story from a position of neutrality. The other record you are implying that exists here, a record from Judea about Pilate's execution of Jesus, would be a separate document from decades prior to the fire. It is a non sequitur to say that if he was working from documents about the fires/Christians, then he must have been working from documents about the execution of Christ.

Why would it need to be a separate document if it was all previously written down by a consensus of previous historians? The evidence strongly demonstrates that Tacitus was accessing the works of previous authors- note the plural use of "authors" below, demonstrating a consensus just 6 paragraphs before the section on Christ, and within the exact same context:

Annals 15.38 "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire."

Since Tacitus' chronicles the persecution of the Christians with such great detail, it is obvious he got the source of this information from previously written historical records just as his text in Annals strongly indicates. This is strong evidence that previous Roman historians also detailed who Christ was in their literature, which indicates that Tacitus was basing much of his work off of- at the very least- secondary sources.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The big question you need to ask yourself regarding this section in Annals is this:

Was the great Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus writing Roman history according to the Romans, or was he writing Christian history according to the Christians?

You choose.

This again? Have I not answered this already? Oh right, I did, and in detail.

Yes, but all you managed to say was that Tacitus was passing off Christian history as if it was Roman history.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But here is something you need to understand.

If the Christians made statements, who did they make them to? Obviously they made those statements to Roman authorities. Those Roman authorities existed some 50 years before Tacitus wrote Annals, so that means that their statements would have been officially recorded and preserved, otherwise Tacitus would never know about them.

Even in that scenario, we don;t see any hearsay. All we see is Tacitus getting his information from official Roman sources.

They made them to the inquisitors. You were kind enough to point to a chapter in Annals (chp. 4) where Tacitus explains that suspects were tortured in interrogations. To this day, the Christians have a "martyr complex" about denying Christ under threat of torture and death, from these sorts of events. I do not have a problem with the documents that came from such interrogations being used in Tacitus' reporting of the fire and what happened thereafter.

But as I have said, over and over again, there is a difference between Roman records written at the time of the fires and the record you are claiming exists about Pilate and the crucifixion.

Speaking of such, have not read Pliny's letter to Trajan which details what kind of information he was getting from tortured Christians? Here we have a perfect example of how Christians were interrogated, tortured and killed, and what kind of information they getting from this procedure.

it is obvious from Pliny and Trajan that they were not persecuting Christians for information regarding their beliefs, but rather for having any kind of belief that contradicted the religious values and practices of the Romans.

In short, the Romans didn't about care to know much at all about what the Christians believed, but rather just wanted to either convert them back to Roman values, or simply kill them for treason.

Tacitus does not go into any detail whatsoever regrading any beliefs the Christians held, which indicates that this information was not the result of any kind of interrogation regarding their religious practices. If the information Tacitus provided us came from an interrogation- as if by hearsay- then why do we not see any details regarding the Christian faith system?

No, all Tacitus says is that Christ was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and that the Christians derived their name from this very same Christ. He does not saying anything to the effect of "the Christians told me," or "there is a rumor," or anything of that nature at all.

He makes a positive statement of fact regarding Christ and Pilate in typical Tacitean style.


Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are just cherry picking again. In fact, you don't even have any evidence whatsoever that Tacitus ever investigated Christianity.

None.

Wait, WHAT!? Shocking

You're seriously going to try to claim that a member of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis, did not investigate a religious group that, 50 years prior, had been big enough to be the source of public spectacles when burned alive, fed to animals, et cetera, and to draw the ire of the Emperor in the first place? What the fuck do you think the council was there for?

Holy crap are you dense! Facepalm

(This is getting long, so I'm going to copy the rest into a Notepad window, and do the rest in a second post...)

Evidence please.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016 10:04 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 10:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  There is no evidence of the record of which you speak. None.

1.Evidence has been provided in abundance which demonstrates that Tacitus was meticulously and continuously using previously written Roman historical records, letters, official Roman records.

2. Textual analysis strongly indicates that Tacitus would have needed to access records regarding Pilate, Tiberius, and the Christians in order for him to chronicle a time-line and provide such details of these persons and events.

3. In the very first paragraph of Chapter 15, which is the beginning of the story concerning the fires of Rome, Pilate, Christ, et al , Tacitus reveals that he is using previously written Roman historical accounts, and he reveals it again in 15.45 with the words of "According to some writers, poison was prepared ..." just one paragraph away (and is a continuation of the story regarding the fires) from Pilate, Christ et all in 15.44. He also reveals within chapter 15 that he is accessing the official Roman records, with two instances of that in paragraphs 15.73 and 15.74.

So yes, from the very beginning, and then directly within the context of the story regarding the fires, there is an abundance of evidence to support that Tacitus was using previously written Roman source materials regarding the fires of Rome, which is inclusive of Pilate, Tiberius, Christ, and the Christians.

This argument has evidence for support. The hearsay argument has no evidence for support.

Do you have a problem with the English language, or reading comprehension in general? I said, quote, "There is no evidence of the record of which you speak." (The one I have stated about ten times would have had to come from Judea to Rome at the time of the alleged crucifixion, which is unrelated to all this other smoke and mirrors--er, sorry about the pun--about the testimony given/recorded during the fires.) No one is arguing that Tacitus didn't have access to official Roman records, or that he didn't employ them. I've said the opposite, repeatedly. You're still attacking a straw man.

(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The point of his statement is not only in reference to the story above, as it is obvious that he is making a general statement that his work, in its entirety, is based upon genuine history as opposed to conjecture and rumour.

If it would be ridiculous to think that Tacitus' comments above regarding genuine history and rumours would only apply to those mere few lines of text within the whole of Annals. Should we then somehow think that his standard of not using rumours in his works doesn't apply to the rest of Annals?

Think this through ...

Are you dense or dishonest? He says directly that it is in reference to the rumors about the story of Drusus, and that he is debunking them in order to put those rumors to bed.


(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Only one instance mentioning Tiberius exists in the Gospel, in Luke 3.1. The Bible itself didn't even exist as a bible at the time of Tacitus.

In addition to that, being a Christian and propagating their literature was a serious crime at the time of Tacitus. Therefore, to assert that Tacitus was propagating Christian history as if it were Roman history would have undoubtedly resulted in his arrest as a traitor to the Roman Empire.

It is completely unreasonable- particularly to the very well learned of the subject- to expect that a highly respected and high ranking Roman official would openly and daringly propagate the literature of a hated enemy by passing it off as genuine Roman history.

But there is no evidence that Tacitus did any of that, and subsequently no evidence of any arrest of him by Roman authorities for high treason, nor even a hint of any accusation against him.

Dense or dishonest. He was a cult researcher, and would have known what the Christians believed. He was a Senator AND chronicler of the Roman leadership, and so he would have been familiar with the political structure and timeline. Yes, from records. This does not address the question of a document about the crucifixion. He is, as I continue to explain to you, telling his audience what a Christian is and what they claimed.

The Gospel of Luke existed by then. It is irrelevant that there was not yet a Bible. That's straight dishonest of you. Explaining to the audience what the Christians who were executed thought (and why they were executed for it) is far from treason.

(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Why would it need to be a separate document if it was all previously written down by a consensus of previous historians? The evidence strongly demonstrates that Tacitus was accessing the works of previous authors- note the plural use of "authors" below, demonstrating a consensus just 6 paragraphs before the section on Christ, and within the exact same context:

Annals 15.38 "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire."

Since Tacitus' chronicles the persecution of the Christians with such great detail, it is obvious he got the source of this information from previously written historical records just as his text in Annals strongly indicates. This is strong evidence that previous Roman historians also detailed who Christ was in their literature, which indicates that Tacitus was basing much of his work off of- at the very least- secondary sources.

Duh. And he says "authors have given both reports" about whether or not Nero was responsible for the fires or whether it was an accident. Reading comprehension problems, still?

(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, but all you managed to say was that Tacitus was passing off Christian history as if it was Roman history.

No, you said that. I said that Tacitus was explaining what the Christians believed, leading to their execution.


(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Speaking of such, have not read Pliny's letter to Trajan which details what kind of information he was getting from tortured Christians? Here we have a perfect example of how Christians were interrogated, tortured and killed, and what kind of information they getting from this procedure.

it is obvious from Pliny and Trajan that they were not persecuting Christians for information regarding their beliefs, but rather for having any kind of belief that contradicted the religious values and practices of the Romans.

In short, the Romans didn't about care to know much at all about what the Christians believed, but rather just wanted to either convert them back to Roman values, or simply kill them for treason.

Tacitus does not go into any detail whatsoever regrading any beliefs the Christians held, which indicates that this information was not the result of any kind of interrogation regarding their religious practices. If the information Tacitus provided us came from an interrogation- as if by hearsay- then why do we not see any details regarding the Christian faith system?

No, all Tacitus says is that Christ was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and that the Christians derived their name from this very same Christ. He does not saying anything to the effect of "the Christians told me," or "there is a rumor," or anything of that nature at all.

He makes a positive statement of fact regarding Christ and Pilate in typical Tacitean style.

If you say so. It looks like a description and comment in an offhand manner, to me, before getting back to the meat of the story about Nero.

(04-07-2016 09:14 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Evidence please.

That Tacitus was a member of the counsel? Certainly!

[11.11] It was during this consulship, in the eight hundredth year after the foundation of Rome and the sixty-fourth after their celebration by Augustus that the secular games were exhibited. I say nothing of the calculations of the two princes, which I have sufficiently discussed in my history of the emperor Domitian; for he also exhibited secular games, at which indeed, being one of the priesthood of the Fifteen and praetor at the time, I specially assisted. It is in no boastful spirit that I mention this, but because this duty has immemorially belonged to the College of the Fifteen, and the praetors have performed the chief functions in these ceremonies.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitu...als11.html

(Bold emphasis mine, of course.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-07-2016 10:48 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It certainly does indicate that he got his information about their origins from official records because, as I said and you agreed to, he would need to lookup the information about Pilate and Tiberius in official Roman records in order to establish a proper time-line, and what this does is eliminate both Pilate and Tiberius from the hearsay argument.

Also, he would have learned all bout the Christians from official Roman records as well, since he goes into great detail about what a Roman Emperor- Nero- did to them.

LIAR!!!

I agreed to no such thing.

[Edit to Add: I feel I need to give an example, to explain why this pisses me off so much. Even if I concede that Tacitus needed to look at records in order to establish the time-frame in which they ruled (I do not), it does not follow to say that because they referenced those records, that there also existed a record of the events in question-- the trial and crucifixion. It would be like saying "Okay, you looked at the record and found out Abraham Lincoln was definitely President of the United States from 1861-1864, therefore you surely saw the records about him being a Vampire Hunter, as the movie showed him to be!" This is preposterous that you would conflate the two claims like that, or claim that my agreement in any way supported the assertion you made thereafter. You are a liar.]

Really? Look below:

Quote:
Quote:Evidence has been abundantly provided which demonstrates that even within the very 15th chapter which includes Pilate, Tiberius, Christ, and the Christians et al, Tacitus is using a plethora of written official Roman records.

Hardly. And I don't doubt that Tacitus is using records about the Emperor-related [Edit to Add: events] he is describing. As I've said. And will say again. So stop mentioning it.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1025079

One of the Emperor related events he is describing is the reign of Tiberius. Since you responded to my statement- which only mentions Tiberius- then what am I supposed to think? I clearly said "Tacitus is using a plethora of written official Roman records" within the same context as Tiberius, and you responded with "I don't doubt that Tacitus is using records about the Emperor-related [Edit to Add: events] he is describing."

No lied intended. It's what you said.

Quote:[quote]
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Hence, with Pilate, Tiberius, and the Christians eliminated from the hearsay argument, all you have left is one single word:

Christ.

Are you seriously going to hang onto one single word, cherry picking it from among all the rest of the text, and still expect a credible hearsay argument when there is absolutely no evidence of hearsay whatsoever?

Straw man argument. Already addressed most of it. Too tired of your shit at this point to re-hash it.

No strawman whatsoever. You are indeed cherry picking one line of text, namely, "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" all because of one single word within it;"Christ."

You have no problem with the rest of this massive tome of Annals, but this one line of text, and this one word of "Christ" absolutely requires an excessively and ridiculously high burden of proof by you.

That is not how history works, nor is how it is determined to be true. You do not place unreasonable standards of proof upon any part of the work than you do upon other parts, especially when this particular section begins with, and continues to include, a plethora of evidence demonstrating that Tacitus was indeed using written sources both historical and official.

Your expectation of evidence eg; nothing less than a precise footnote after the word Christ, is completely unreasonable and unacceptable.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Do you see the bias you are using here? You are 100% convinced that the Christians furnished information to Tacitus, which is evidenced by your words of "a direct source demonstrating that Pilate actually did what the Christians claimed he did.

I am convinced that Tacitus got the claims about Pilate's actions in executing Christ from the Christians,

And you have absolutely no supporting evidence of this whatsoever.

Therefore, this argument is dismissed.

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And even if it existed why wouldn't it be the same thing as a direct source? Considering that the text states that "then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted," an immense multitude providing information amounts to nothing less than an immense consensus.

You just made my case for me. Thanks! Of course there was a consensus among them. If they told it to others, and it was written down, then it is nevertheless an indirect source of information, no matter how many of them told the story they learned from whoever converted them to Christianity.

I do not argue with the question of whether the "immense multitude" of those Christians who were convicted told the same story about Pilate and Christ. Why would they not do so? That's part of what made them Christians. However, they would have gotten their information about it from the writers of the Gospels and/or from evangelists who brought the stories to them. A million people repeating a secondhand story is still hearsay.

So you expect well learned people to believe- without evidence- that Tacitus used a few scribbles from some 50 year old parchment about some comments made by some hated Christians about Christ, Pilate, and Tiberius?

Is that about right?

Big Grin

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Here again is a moving-the-goalposts argument. You are asking for separate confirmation for one cherry picked word:

Christ

You are fine with everything else, but this one word absolutely requires a completely separate and exceptionally higher standard of evidence than anything else.

Ask yourself "why?" What motivates you to demand such an extremely high standard of evidence for one single word?

Again, if you seen "Robert" in place of Christ, you wouldn't reject any part of it. Your anti-Christian bias wouldn't kick in if it said Robert.

[Image: 8bce00e2853c6e2114fa905d9e8feaba2ba1bc07...b337a5.jpg]

You have no argument for this, because none exists. It's simply the truth.

Big Grin

Quote:
(03-07-2016 07:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And that right there is the difference between a somewhat educated albeit biased layman such as yourself, and a highly skilled and highly trained unbiased historian.

The reality is, when it comes to honest history, the fact that it mentions Christ is absolutely meaningless. It's absolutely no different than if it said "Robert."

No difference whatsoever.

You're quite right, it makes no difference whatsoever. But if you were claiming that we had evidence via Tacitus of Pilate executing Robert, when Robert was the leader of the cult being described by Tacitus for his Roman audience, I would make the same argument. I treat no claim and no religion with favoritism.

You freakin' Christians and your martyr complexes. Rolleyes

Firstly, I'm not a Christian, nor do I have any faith in any kind of religion.

Secondly, again you are being completely unreasonable with your expectation of evidence.

Your position is rejected, not only by me, but virtually unanimously by the learned in the scholarly community.

And for good reason.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: