Debating the historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 08:06 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
There are many reasons to doubt we have listed them, quoted them, walked you through them. But you just turn away, wave your hand and keep repeating "there is no reason to doubt".

You are not applying any skepticism here. You accuse anyone with questions or doubts as being a mythicist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
16-03-2015, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 01:37 PM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 12:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 08:06 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
There are many reasons to doubt we have listed them, quoted them, walked you through them. But you just turn away, wave your hand and keep repeating "there is no reason to doubt".

You are not applying any skepticism here. You accuse anyone with questions or doubts as being a mythicist.

I have not turned away. I have demonstrated in my previous post why any claims of reasonable doubt by you, or anyone else so far in this discussion, are completely void of basis.

And that includes Richard Carrier, who has never- not even once- met the standard of what "reasonable doubt" actually is.

Hence, what is being demonstrated here by some of you is unreasonable doubt.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
16-03-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 12:40 PM)Free Wrote:  I have not turned away. I have demonstrated in my previous post why any claims of reasonable doubt by you, or anyone else so far in this discussion, are completely void of basis.
The thing is, you keep insisting that Tacitus is infalable.
You don't acknowldege that Tacitus has no first hand information.
You don't acknowledge that Tacitus' references were not first hand accounts.
You haven't acknowledged that according to the historical method this means that Tacitus' account is less reliable
You don't acknowledge that the references Tacitus used are not available today and the authors of them are unknown.
You don't acknowledge that it is unknown how the authors of the references came about their information.
You haven't acknowledged that according to the historical method this means that Tacitus' account is less reliable
You haven't acknowledged/disclosed that Tacitus has a proven track record of sometimes documenting (as truth) things that didn't actually happen.
You don't acknowledge that the time between Tacitus' account and the alleged event is over 50 years and hence according to the Historical Method less reliable.


All you keep chanting is
"You don't have any reason to doubt"

Well, this speaks volumes about your ability to apply critical reasoning towards this topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
16-03-2015, 04:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 04:47 PM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 12:40 PM)Free Wrote:  I have not turned away. I have demonstrated in my previous post why any claims of reasonable doubt by you, or anyone else so far in this discussion, are completely void of basis.
The thing is, you keep insisting that Tacitus is infalable.

I have said no such thing.

Quote:You don't acknowldege that Tacitus has no first hand information.

Tacitus has demonstrated that he is using Roman records, which has been my point all along.

Quote:You don't acknowledge that Tacitus' references were not first hand accounts.

You are asserting they are not first-hand ROMAN accounts. Since Tacitus is seen using all available resources, which includes the Roman registries and records, then you are assuming he wasn't using 1st hand accounts from the Roman record data bases.

It is YOU who are making assumptions here about where he got his sources, but providing no evidence to support your claims.

I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that Tacitus was accessing both historical records and the Roman registries right inside the book/chapter where he details the Great Fires of Rome, which mentions Christus and the Christians.

Bluntly, I have provided evidence to support my position, and you have provided NONE!

Quote:You haven't acknowledged that according to the historical method this means that Tacitus' account is less reliable

When viewed as a historian, Tacitus has been demonstrated as using the Historical method. Therefore, we could take Richard carriers works, or any modern historian's works, and do the exact same thing.

Tacitus does not fail the historical method, for he actually utilizes it.

Quote:You don't acknowledge that the references Tacitus used are not available today and the authors of them are unknown.

Tacitus got his records from Roman historical data bases, and you want all the names of all the people who wrote up Roman history and entered data into the registries? Laughat

You are refusing to acknowledge that Tacitus names his sources constantly as being historical records, Roman registries, personal letters, and other investigations.

In fact, within the very same book/chapter that he mentions Christus, he tells us just a couple paragraphs later that he is accessing the Roman registry for information. The part about Christus is located at 15:44, and here is Tacitus at 15:74:

[15.74] I find in the registers of the Senate that Cerialis Anicius, consul-elect, proposed a motion

So we have at least two instances of Tacitus accessing Roman historical data within the very same book/chapter he writes about Christus.

This is evidence. This is information that cannot be honestly ignored. You have been given evidence to support my position.

Aside from assertion, what evidence have you ever provided to support your position?


Quote:You don't acknowledge that it is unknown how the authors of the references came about their information.

I do acknowledge that, but that is not my argument. My argument is in demonstrating that Tacitus used all available resources which were more than the writings of previous historians. My argument provides evidence to demonstrate my points.

And your argument provides absolutely nothing in evidence. None. Squat. Nada. Zip.

You have assertions, not evidence. You have no reason to doubt because you have no basis for the reason.


Quote:You haven't acknowledged that according to the historical method this means that Tacitus' account is less reliable

If this were true, then why do almost all historians (aside from Carrier and a couple others out of thousands) disagree with you?

Tacitus employs the historical method, and everyone knows it.

Quote:You haven't acknowledged/disclosed that Tacitus has a proven track record of sometimes documenting (as truth) things that didn't actually happen.

And that was explained in your own post; moral reasons, instruction, et al.

So?

Quote:You don't acknowledge that the time between Tacitus' account and the alleged event is over 50 years and hence according to the Historical Method less reliable.

Actually the Great Fires of Rome happened likely less than 45 years before Tacitus wrote Annals. But you don't acknowledge that Tacitus was A CONTEMPORARY of that event.

Dude, he lived through it.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
16-03-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 04:29 PM)Free Wrote:   Dude, he was there.
I think that sums up your position quite nicely.

I remain skeptical however(call me a denialist or mythicist if you want). But thanks for your time. I have learnt from you that there is some evidence (regardless of the strength of that evidence) and that there is a "Historical Method" which historians now use but was devised after Tacitus' time. I have learned that Tacitus has a decent reputation for accurate historical reporting but has been known to present some minor historical inaccuracies. I have learnt that people who accept Tacitus' account of the crucifixion assume that Tacitus got his information from other Roman historians and assume that those other "lost" reference accounts were somehow reliably accurate.
Thank you for your time, I know more now than I did before.
Cheers
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
16-03-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 05:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 04:29 PM)Free Wrote:   Dude, he was there.
I think that sums up your position quite nicely.

I remain skeptical however(call me a denialist or mythicist if you want). But thanks for your time. I have learnt from you that there is some evidence (regardless of the strength of that evidence) and that there is a "Historical Method" which historians now use but was devised after Tacitus' time. I have learned that Tacitus has a decent reputation for accurate historical reporting but has been known to present some minor historical inaccuracies. I have learnt that people who accept Tacitus' account of the crucifixion assume that Tacitus got his information from other Roman historians and assume that those other "lost" reference accounts were somehow reliably accurate.
Thank you for your time, I know more now than I did before.
Cheers

Hey, the whole point was to just have a decent and meaningful discussion in search of whatever truths can be unearthed.

The reality is, from an atheistic/agnostic perspective, these types of discussions are nothing more than an exercise in futility. We don't really care if Jesus existed or not because it doesn't make any real difference.

My point about all this isn't Jesus, but rather merely history. If he existed, then he did. If he didn't, then he didn't.

It's one or the other.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
16-03-2015, 06:03 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 05:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think that sums up your position quite nicely.

I remain skeptical however(call me a denialist or mythicist if you want). But thanks for your time. I have learnt from you that there is some evidence (regardless of the strength of that evidence) and that there is a "Historical Method" which historians now use but was devised after Tacitus' time. I have learned that Tacitus has a decent reputation for accurate historical reporting but has been known to present some minor historical inaccuracies. I have learnt that people who accept Tacitus' account of the crucifixion assume that Tacitus got his information from other Roman historians and assume that those other "lost" reference accounts were somehow reliably accurate.
Thank you for your time, I know more now than I did before.
Cheers

Hey, the whole point was to just have a decent and meaningful discussion in search of whatever truths can be unearthed.

The reality is, from an atheistic/agnostic perspective, these types of discussions are nothing more than an exercise in futility. We don't really care if Jesus existed or not because it doesn't make any real difference.

My point about all this isn't Jesus, but rather merely history. If he existed, then he did. If he didn't, then he didn't.

It's one or the other.

I struggle to take things in a is one or the other point in these historical discussions. Because how much is it so that kinda does make as much difference as, is so.

Such as, if there was a person named Jesus born of a Joseph and Mary that had a minor group of people around him... but there was also many other prophets that were around and had stories or speeches they gave that were around. And say another false messiah like 50 years prior had mounted aggression against Rome and was crucified for it existed.

IF the case was a mixing of various people into a more legendary one in both contexts, is that saying the person did exist?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-03-2015, 06:34 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(16-03-2015 06:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 05:37 PM)Free Wrote:  Hey, the whole point was to just have a decent and meaningful discussion in search of whatever truths can be unearthed.

The reality is, from an atheistic/agnostic perspective, these types of discussions are nothing more than an exercise in futility. We don't really care if Jesus existed or not because it doesn't make any real difference.

My point about all this isn't Jesus, but rather merely history. If he existed, then he did. If he didn't, then he didn't.

It's one or the other.

I struggle to take things in a is one or the other point in these historical discussions. Because how much is it so that kinda does make as much difference as, is so.

Such as, if there was a person named Jesus born of a Joseph and Mary that had a minor group of people around him... but there was also many other prophets that were around and had stories or speeches they gave that were around. And say another false messiah like 50 years prior had mounted aggression against Rome and was crucified for it existed.

IF the case was a mixing of various people into a more legendary one in both contexts, is that saying the person did exist?

No, for it would imply exactly what it suggests; that no one person would be the existent entity, effectively non existence.

But also, it may be possible to break down the composite of the "more legendary one" and extract the characteristics of each individual who comprised the composite, and then research to identify each individual.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
17-03-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Facepalm

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 01:18 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
Jesus probably existed. And if so, he most certainly died. End of story. Move on.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: