Debating the historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 02:11 AM)A New Hope Wrote:  Lol fuck all that do you think that at some point there was a guy named jesus who was born as the son of joseph who one way or another ended up on a cross?
I don't know. Is there some evidence to suggest that a person with the name of Jesus and a father with the name of Joseph was crucified?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
16-03-2015, 01:25 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 01:49 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(15-03-2015 09:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(14-03-2015 10:10 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You mean you're finally going to get to the fucking point instead of just punting afield again?

It has been my "fucking point" since this debate began, but since your intention is to constantly immaturely digress from the point with ad homs and meaningless internet memes, I am going to give you another "fucking chance" to debate this issue with some "fucking semblance" of intellect.

Big Grin

Quote:I'm sorely temped to tell you to fuck off in light of your repeated ignoring of my points in my previous responses.

Your tone has been telling me to "fuck off" since this discussion started, and I will indeed ignore your posts- not "points," because you've haven't made any- until you begin to behave like a mature adult.

Quote:Okay. Your point?

Ummm ... what part of the red colored text, and bold type with the word "POINT" listed above did you fail to see?

Quote:
(14-03-2015 08:00 AM)Free Wrote:  Point 1: There is absolutely nothing in that text that even hints at a Christian source. In fact, the text describing the punishments of the Christians is something that we cannot find in any Christian source at all.


That's not the point you incredulous fucktard.[/quotte]

If it isn't one of my points, then why is it listed in red colored text and bold type with the word "POINT?" Do I need to spell it out for you, highlight it like a neon sign, and make it stand out?

Oh yeah, I forgot, I already did all that!

Big Grin

[quote] Once again, if you want to claim that this is a corroborative source, then you need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't just getting his information from Christians,

That has been accomplished. Just because YOU say a reasonable doubt exists after all this evidence in my POINTS does not mean any reasonable doubt actually exists.

There is no reasonable doubt.


Quote:who they themselves got their information from the Gospels. There is nothing in that text as to give positive indication beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of a non-Christian source. So the Christians were unpopular and had been scapegoated by Nero for the burning of Rome. What about any of that proves that Tacitus got his claims about Jesus from sources other than already believing Christians? He doesn't explicitly state where or who his sources were, and it is very probable that his information was sourced from Christians.

Here's where we totally demonstrate your lack of study in this area, get ready to get schooled.

Tacitus is using the scholarly consensus of previous historians who wrote their histories decades before he did. He is also using the Roman registries, personal letters of historical persons, et al.

Now, you are saying that he got his information from the Christians, who then got their information from the Gospels.

Firstly, the text does not demonstrate any such thing. You do not see anything in the Tacitus text which exists in any Gospel. The Gospels mention Jesus being crucified, not merely someone named Christus. The gospels say nothing of this Roman event regarding Christus and the Christians at all. Nor does any other text whatsoever. Why? Because it's ROMAN history, not Christian history.

Secondly, since it has been demonstrated that Tacitus is using previous historical records which include historians, Roman registries, et al, and it is agreed upon by historians including Mythicist historians such as Richard Carrier that the gospels didn't even exist during the Great Fires of Rome, then no historian who chronicled the event of the Great Fires of Rome could possibly have gotten any information transferred to him by any Christian via the Gospel record. The Gospels did not exist. Get it?

Thirdly, Tacitus named a high ranking Roman official, Pontius Pilate, as the one who executed Christus. He also names Tiberius as being the Caesar during the time period. He places the event in Judea, but gives no definite place within Judea, such as outside of Jerusalem, which Christians would know. Pontius Pilate has been proven to exist, and proven to be the Roman official in charge of Judea during that time, and there is no doubting the existence of Tiberius, the Caesar.

So are we to think that Tacitus would get his information from a class who was hated, an abomination, full of hatred for mankind, evil, criminals, and who held to mischievous superstitions, and then have Tacitus state as fact what you believe to be Christian "rumors" regarding Christus, and then record this Christus incident as historical fact pertaining to Caesar Tiberius' reign, and also to the personal history of a high ranking Roman official named Pontius Pilate?

Is that what you want us to think? Really? Laughat

In conclusion, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion of reasonable doubt. NONE. If you think you have any evidence at all, please feel free to present enough evidence to support reasonable doubt. Crickets

In fact, you have no evidence at all to support any doubt, PERIOD. Asserting doubt without evidence to support it is not skepticism, but rather it is DENIALISM.
Facepalm

Since everything else you've said hinges on your assumption that Tacitus somehow got his information from Christians- which has been demonstrated as nothing but the rantings of a mind gone mad- then there will be no point in repeating what I have already said.

Drinking Beverage


Tacitus and Jesus

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

-Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?

-Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.


http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott...ojfaq.html


Because the Christians were so hated, that of course Tacitus didn't use them as a source of information! But he used Jesus' Christian title and not his given name. Wait, what?

Both sides of your mouth Free. Both sides of your mouth... Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-03-2015, 02:09 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_...chap5.html

Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that

Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus's trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa's reinstatement... All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]

There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
16-03-2015, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 08:59 AM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 01:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Tacitus and Jesus

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

-Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?

-Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

As I previously noted, there is absolutely no basis for doubt. Any of those 2 or 3 scholars- which includes Carrier who is a biased mythicist- who make any such claims as not being authentic have yet to demonstrate, with actual evidence, any basis for their claims.

In other words, they have no reason to doubt it.

Quote:The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence.

Speculation. No evidence for support. No supported reason to doubt.

Quote:If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation.

The Annals text demonstrates Tacitus using the Roman registries.

Quote:There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator).

This is all Carrier's assertions. Let me show you how easy it is to completely destroy is "logic," or lack thereof. Get ready dude, because this is the 1st time you will ever see this from anyone:

Contrary to common misunderstandings, the Gospel record does not indicate that Pilate was Procurator or a Prefect. Yet here we have Tacitus listing him as a Procurator. Guess what that means? Guess who DIDN'T get his information about Pilate from the Gospel or Christians?

In addition to that, some smaller imperial provinces where no legions were based (e.g. Mauretania, Thrace, Rhaetia, Noricum, and Judaea) were administered by equestrian praefecti (prefects) later designated procuratores (procurators) who commanded only auxilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatus_Aug...o_praetore

Hence, the study of Roman history demonstrates that a Procurator is one who advanced in rank from Prefect.

Pilate was a Prefect, but as Tacitus demonstrates, he had been advanced in rank to Procurator.

See how easy that was? Don't you understand yet not to trust the reasoning of a Mythicist such as Carrier? You simply will not get the unbiased information required to make an honest assessment of the evidence.

Quote:Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name.

Unsubstantiated argument. With one question, it is rendered useless.

With what evidence can be supplied to support this argument?

For the record, the word "Christus" is a Latin rendering of the Hebrew "Messiah." It isn't about a "Christian" title, but it is rather a Latin word. Indeed, since Tacitus used the Latin version of "Christus," and not "Christos," then you have been mislead again by mythicism.

Just more lies for the mythicist fire, which is obviously going down in flames.

Drinking Beverage

(Honestly, this Wikipedia stuff you are posting from the Tacitus page is insufficient for scholarship, since that article is constantly being edited my Mythicists and then undone by the Wiki editors. Over 500 edits and change-backs in the past 4.5 years, showing it gets "attacked" 2 or 3 times a week.)


Quote:Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott...ojfaq.html

This, from one biased mythicist who can't get a job at any learning institution due to his unsupported and radical views. Laughat

Quote:[Because the Christians were so hated, that of course Tacitus didn't use them as a source of information! But he used Jesus' Christian title and not his given name. Wait, what?

Both sides of your mouth Free. Both sides of your mouth... Rolleyes

What point do you think you actually made here?

You do not understand that "Christus" is a Roman-Greco title? It's a LATIN word. It's the Latin equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 02:09 AM)Stevil Wrote:  There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices. Tacitus thus refers to "Christus" in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition."

Not even a good argument. All speculation.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 09:14 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 09:18 AM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(12-03-2015 12:22 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 09:22 PM)Free Wrote:  However, Tacitus, for example, names his sources so many times I lost count. Even the part known as the Great Fires of Rome- which contains the section on Christ and the Christians- begins with Tacitus clearly stating that he was using previous historical authors as his source material.
Its interesting that you say this.
On this pro-Jesus site I find this:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

Quote:Tacitus may have borrowed his information of Jesus from Christians or from Pliny the Younger, or from some other secondhand source. It may not be reliable.

Overall, Tacitus' reliability as a historian counts against his having borrowed information uncritically from any source. Moreover, and as further support:

That Tacitus got his information from Christians is shown unlikely by the negative tone of the reference.
That Tacitus got his information on Jesus, or some of it, from Pliny originally is quite possible.
The first bit in Bold is not the opinion of the web page author, it is an expression of what critics of Jesus might say. The web page author then attempts to defend against the expression.

Clearly he is showing that it is unknown from where Tacitus got his information on Jesus. This means that Tacitus did not offer any reference on this despite what (Free) has claimed.

By the way, the website listed above in Stevil's quote has updated their info on Tacitus according to what we have discussed here, and they will be updating it again as per the information I provided regarding Prefect/Procurator in my previous post to EvolutionKills.

This discussion, despite how heated it has become, has become fruitful enough to be recognized and is actually being watched from the peanut gallery.

Well done all.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 09:14 AM)Free Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 12:22 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Its interesting that you say this.
On this pro-Jesus site I find this:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

The first bit in Bold is not the opinion of the web page author, it is an expression of what critics of Jesus might say. The web page author then attempts to defend against the expression.

Clearly he is showing that it is unknown from where Tacitus got his information on Jesus. This means that Tacitus did not offer any reference on this despite what (Free) has claimed.

By the way, the website listed above in Stevil's quote has updated their info on Tacitus according to what we have discussed here, and they will be updating it again as per the information I provided regarding Prefect/Procurator in my previous post to EvolutionKills.

This discussion, despite how heated it has become, has become fruitful enough to be recognized and is actually being watched from the peanut gallery.

Well done all.

Thumbsup

I'll have to tell the pastor to update his Yellow card.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 10:18 AM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 09:14 AM)Free Wrote:  By the way, the website listed above in Stevil's quote has updated their info on Tacitus according to what we have discussed here, and they will be updating it again as per the information I provided regarding Prefect/Procurator in my previous post to EvolutionKills.

This discussion, despite how heated it has become, has become fruitful enough to be recognized and is actually being watched from the peanut gallery.

Well done all.

Thumbsup

I'll have to tell the pastor to update his Yellow card.

Not sure what that means.

I am also wondering if anyone can see past the play you made with your username that appears like "Ocean the Rapist" to understand that it actually means "Ocean Therapist?"

Smartass

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 10:29 AM)Free Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 10:18 AM)Ocean theRAPIST Wrote:  I'll have to tell the pastor to update his Yellow card.

Not sure what that means.

I am also wondering if anyone can see past the play you made with your username that appears like "Ocean the Rapist" to understand that it actually means "Ocean Therapist?"

Smartass

My OP that got this all started had to do with me debating a pastor on Facebook. And he kept posting these yellow cards with with josephus, Tacitus and others To prove his point. The problem now is I got kicked off that page So I can't tell him to update anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 12:13 PM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Still within the context of this discussion, I find it prudent to explain the differences between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt."

Firstly, in regards to 'doubt" we will display the standard dictionary definition:

doubt:

verb

to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doubt

In a sense, one can have a doubt, but there must be some kind reason to warrant the doubt. Therefore, we will now supply the definition for "reason."

reason:

noun

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason?s=t

The definition demonstrates that "reason" must first be warranted with a basis or cause.

So now we examine the definition of "basis."

basis:

noun, plural

a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/basis

So now we can arrive at what a reasonable doubt actually is.

For a reasonable doubt to be valid, it must be based upon a given and known fact.

Therefore, if it is not based upon a given or known fact, it is not a reasonable doubt.

Within the context of this discussion regarding Tacitus, we have seen many assertions against the evidence that have not passed the test of a reasonable doubt for the simple reason that no facts have been presented into evidence.

Therefore, sure you can have a doubt, but until you presents facts to support your doubt, then you have not validated a reasonable doubt.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: