Debating the historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2015, 12:22 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 11:11 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.

No, what it means is that the author of that web page does not know what Free knows. Note: They have been notified and will include my position on that page tomorrow.

Big Grin

The paragraph regarding Christ and the Christians is told within the chapter regarding what is commonly known as "The Great Fires of Rome." It begins as follows:

[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.

[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,

In 15.38, Tacitus begins his section on the Great Fires of Rome, and literally tells us that he was getting his information from previous authors of Roman history. He tells us that it is uncertain as to whether the fire which broke out was an accident, or if Nero treacherously did it, and explains that the previous authors have given both accounts.

6 paragraphs later, he mentions Christ and the Christians, and tell us that in order to get rid of the report that it was he who started the fire, Nero blamed the Christians.

The whole thing ties in together, since the 1st paragraph tells us that Nero was accused of starting the fire, and then the part regarding the Christians tells us that in order to get rid of the report that Nero was to blame, he accused the Christians of doing it.

And there's the god damn source for Tacitus' retelling of the Great Fires of Rome, which speaks about the Christians and Christ.

Tacitus was referencing previous Roman historical data. This is real. This is tangible. This is evidence.


Now we wait to watch the disingenuous fucks who quote this and then say something to the effect of, "But but but ... he doesn't place a footnote right behind the part about Christus," or make some disingenuous comment about forgery, or a non sequitur, raise the bar, move the goal posts, etc.

Now we watch the denialists go to work.

Get ready for the intellectually dishonest freak show, Stevil.

Popcorn

P.S. I reiterate that this does not conclusively prove anything, but I can guarantee you all that this argument is the very best argument you will ever see to explain where Tacitus got his source for the Christians and Christ.

Because of this, I consider the question as being answered.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 10:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(11-03-2015 09:49 PM)Free Wrote:  That's his opinion, but does he actually provide any other ancient texts to demonstrate the comparison?

Yes he does, and clearly demonstrates it in his videos and books.

Quote:The synoptic maybe, because Q is hypothetical. John is not among them.

Ever read them ? Q is not "hypothetical". The Historical/literary methods you go on about were used legitimately to infer it, as a literary source. That has happened many times in the history of literature, and it's not questioned. As for the Synoptics, and John, they are VASTLY different and contain VASTLY different concepts about almost all the important things. John is an exercise if Greek Gnosticism, and the "facts" don't line up. The day, the time of the death he CHANGED to suit his literary purpose, the Last Supper has no Eucharistic "institution". etc etc.

Quote:He was in Egypt.

He was not. He travelled widely. He was often in Jerusalem, and you have no idea where he was, when.

Quote:That's an assertion that doesn't demonstrate anything to dispute what they said.

They are not "history". They are "faith documents". They don't need "disputing". Any claim they make, ("faith") must be supported by something EXTERNAL, and there is nothing other than other faith claims.

Quote:That's all well and good, but it really doesn't prove anything with this Jesus dude.
Anyways, back tomorrow.

It doesn't have to "prove" anything. We're talking about reasons for doubt. There are many reasons to doubt. And there is nothing really that stands up under scrutiny to believe he did actually exist, that exists outside the "bla bla" and "bla" of believers. Nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-03-2015, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 11:04 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.

Note: I have contacted that web site and gave them the answer. They are stunned. They will be updating their web page with my information.

Wait for the change.

Drinking Beverage

*Shrug* ... this is what I do.

Update: Their website will be updated tomorrow to include my position. J.P. Holding himself is whom I am corresponding to in email.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(12-03-2015 10:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 09:49 PM)Free Wrote:  That's his opinion, but does he actually provide any other ancient texts to demonstrate the comparison?

Yes he does, and clearly demonstrates it in his videos and books.

I would like to see these texts, and see if his comparison is actually valid.

Quote:
Quote:The synoptic maybe, because Q is hypothetical. John is not among them.

Ever read them ? Q is not "hypothetical". The Historical/literary methods you go on about were used legitimately to infer it, as a literary source.

Read them many times. Q is still considered hypothetical, but despite that, I do agree that it definitely is probable. By necessity, it would begin via oral transmission. My only problem is that the proposed Q may not have been a singular source. I suspect it is multiple sources both oral and textual.

Quote: That has happened many times in the history of literature, and it's not questioned. As for the Synoptics, and John, they are VASTLY different and contain VASTLY different concepts about almost all the important things. John is an exercise if Greek Gnosticism, and the "facts" don't line up. The day, the time of the death he CHANGED to suit his literary purpose, the Last Supper has no Eucharistic "institution". etc etc.

Agreed, and I have been saying for years that John is an early form of Gnosticism.

Quote:
Quote:He was in Egypt.

He was not. He travelled widely. He was often in Jerusalem, and you have no idea where he was, when.

He travelled mainly from Alexandria to Rome. He was a hellenized Jew. He may have traveled to Jerusalem, but stating he was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus is an unsupported assertion. Also, to suggest that he should have said something about the Jesus' crucifixion is yet another unsupported assumption.

This argument from silence is dead.


Quote:
Quote:That's an assertion that doesn't demonstrate anything to dispute what they said.

They are not "history". They are "faith documents". They don't need "disputing". Any claim they make, ("faith") must be supported by something EXTERNAL, and there is nothing other that other faith claims.

You seem to imply that documents that demonstrate faith cannot have any other kind of historical value.

On what basis can you support this assertion?

Quote:
Quote:That's all well and good, but it really doesn't prove anything with this Jesus dude.
Anyways, back tomorrow.

It doesn't have to "prove" anything. We're talking about reasons for doubt. There are many reasons to doubt. And there is nothing really that stands up under scrutiny to believe he did actually exist, that exists outside the "bla bla" and "bla" of believers. Nothing.

The reasons for doubt are petty, at best.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
We know Philo visited the Jerusalem Temple, more than once.

Quote:You seem to imply that documents that demonstrate faith cannot have any other kind of historical value.

On what basis can you support this assertion?

The reasons for doubt are petty, at best.

You may see them as petty because you want them to be seen as petty, as that's your bias, which I fully get. It's pretty unusual for someone to ask for a COMPLETE re-examination of what has just been assumed to be true for so long. I get that's hard to swallow. Faith documents are fine IF they can be supported by EXTERNAL evidence. Nothing about Jesus can actually be supported, externally, and in light of all the fabrications, lies, exaggerations, and mythical additions to the possible "kernal of truth" (which I admit *just might be true*), I see no reason to lean in the direction of his possible existence, when we know so much of the story was just made up, with the use of the circulating memes and themes of the day. If it is truem he was just one of many wandering Apocalypitic preachers going around doing what were taken to be "miracles". I know we're never going to agree about this, and it doesn't matter, really if we do. There IS a case for non-historicity. The problem is pretty much the only people who care to even discuss it, are believers so there is no real background of non-biased expertise.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-03-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(12-03-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  Now we watch the denialists go to work.

Get ready for the intellectually dishonest freak show, Stevil.
Excuse me, but are you being a wanker on purpose? Can you please quit with this shit, it's uncalled for. We are having a conversation about what evidence there is. If you take offense to someone asking you to present evidence then you gotta wonder why you are so easily offended.


(12-03-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  In 15.38, Tacitus begins his section on the Great Fires of Rome, and literally tells us that he was getting his information from previous authors of Roman history.
So he is giving an account based on what he has read by other authors. Are those original works available? Who were those authors? How many of them were there? How were they privy to the information?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
12-03-2015, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 01:18 PM by Free.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(12-03-2015 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  Now we watch the denialists go to work.

Get ready for the intellectually dishonest freak show, Stevil.
Excuse me, but are you being a wanker on purpose? Can you please quit with this shit, it's uncalled for. We are having a conversation about what evidence there is. If you take offense to someone asking you to present evidence then you gotta wonder why you are so easily offended.

Just wait for it. It's got nothing to do with being a damn wanker. It's got everything to do with me demonstrating a fucking point.


Quote:
(12-03-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  In 15.38, Tacitus begins his section on the Great Fires of Rome, and literally tells us that he was getting his information from previous authors of Roman history.
So he is giving an account based on what he has read by other authors. Are those original works available? Who were those authors? How many of them were there? How were they privy to the information?

What reason do you have to doubt Tacitus' claim?

Please insert denialist response below:

Drinking Beverage

You have proven my point. I provided the answer, and you moved the goalposts for more evidence.

Bowing

Your questions are irrelevant. The answer on where he got his sources has been demonstrated, and it doesn't matter who wrote those previous sources.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(12-03-2015 01:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Just wait for it. It's got nothing to do with being a damn wanker. It's got everything to do with me demonstrating a fucking point.
If you want to come of as engaging then don't grumble when people ask questions, don't accuse people of being denialists and dishonest when they are in the phase of information gathering.
I haven't denied anything, I am trying to work out what "evidence" you are aware of and are able to share. I am trying to assess the strength of any "evidence" you provide.
(12-03-2015 01:11 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:So he is giving an account based on what he has read by other authors. Are those original works available? Who were those authors? How many of them were there? How were they privy to the information?

What reason do you have to doubt Tacitus' claim?
1. Tacitus wasn't an eye witness. According to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
2. It is unknown how close Tacitus' "account" is to the actual event. He got his information from other documents, Were those documents authored by eye witnesses or were those authors also relying on second hand information? How far removed is Tacitus in a chain of conveyed information from an actual eye witness to the event? 2, 3, 4, 5 layers of Chiness wispers? Since it is unknown then according to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
3. Tacitus' account is not supported by other documents. According to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
4. It is unclear as to where Tacitus got his information from. According to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
5. Tacitus' document was written decades after the event. According to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
6. The authors of the documents that Tacitus uses as his source are unknown. According to the Historical Method this makes his account less reliable.
7. The documents that Tacitus uses as his source are not referenced and are not available. According to common sense this makes his account less reliable.
(12-03-2015 01:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Please insert denialist response below:
I can only assume you want me to believe without having seen, hence this bizzare tactic of trying to deride people from asking questions or doubting flimsy evidence.
(12-03-2015 01:11 PM)Free Wrote:  You have proven my point. I provided the answer, and you moved the goalposts for more evidence.
I haven't shifted any goal posts.
I am asking how the author (in this case Tacitus) knows about the event.
You have claimed he got the information from other authors.
I am logically asking how those other authors got the information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
12-03-2015, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 03:04 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Debating the historical Jesus
(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Development and composition

John Riches states that, "Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking oral traditions and of straight borrowing from other Gospels to make this likely." For example, the vast majority of material in Mark is also present in either Luke or Matthew or both, suggesting that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke.

The four canonical gospels "were probably all written by the end of the first century". But they did not yet at that time have a consistent narrative. "In 170 Tatian sought to find a solution by composing a single narrative out of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with some additional oral material."

According to Linda Woodhead,

Christian gospels are also propaganda. They tell their readers (or hearers) that Jesus was something special, and they expect them to respond accordingly. No neutral stance is possible in relation to a gospel. Depending on your response, its message will turn out either to be good news for you – or bad.

The gospel passages themselves can be unclear, and some of the messages within are "straightforwardly ambiguous" and intended to be "metaphorical" or "poetic".

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Development_and_composition
But does this actually prove it?

You'll see what I am actually getting at later.


Yes, because proving Jesus did not exist is the exact same as doubting he existed.

Does that work for gods too? Oh right, that's the difference between being a gnostic atheist (knowing no gods exits) and being an agnostic atheist (having no positive belief in the existence of gods).

For fuck's sake dude, this is why you cannot reason yourself out of a wet paper bag. You're so caught up on fighting a strawman, you can't fucking think straight... Dodgy



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, you can accept some premises for reasons X and still reject other premises for reasons Y, even if both premises are accepted by other people. For's fuck's sake dude...
Get ready for it, and hold that thought ...


Ready for more credulity and strawmen? Have at it hoss...



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it's evaluating reasons and evidence a la carte, piece by piece. Nothing says that agreeing with other people's opinions is an 'all or nothing' affair. Well, no one except you it seems
Now here's the punchline for all your statements above.

You said that you can agree with the scholars on some things, but not on other things. Fair enough.

However, because the NT states that Jesus was crucified ad nausium, and because we find this crucifixion ad nausium in non canonical texts and histories, and it's virtually unanimous among scholars that Jesus existed and was crucified, then how can we not be "evaluating reasons and evidence a la carte, piece by piece?"


The authors of the Gospels are not reliable, and given the evidence that they built upon one another, they are the furthest thing from being corroborative; they are derivative works, not independent sources. All other non-canonical mentions of it are from far later sources, which even assuming they're were not later Christians interpolations, could have just as easily just been recounting what Christians at the time claimed; information they themselves got from the their Gospels, which are not reliable sources.

If the scholarly consensus, made up of mostly Christian scholars with a vested interest in maintaining Jesus' historicity (because most of the money and job opportunities are funded by fellow Christians), is really built upon such a feeble house of cards? You're damn right I'm skeptical about the whole fucking endeavor.



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  It's more than just the scholars dude, it's all about the textual evidence from numerous sources.

It's all about a chain of evidence beginning with the Gospel records, to the contemporary Paul and rest of the NT (AD 40 - 85), Clement (AD 90), Josephus (AD 93), Tacitus (AD 111) Polycarp (AD 130), Justin Martyr (AD 150) and on and on.

The exact same thing is constantly corroborated over and over with numerous cultures, including the Romans, Greeks, Jews, Christians, and Pagans. We see it from believers and non believers alike, so why do you have this problem accepting this argument?

When you have this much evidence displayed on a time-line from the time of Jesus to more than 100 years later from numerous diverse sources, the argument for historicity completely and utterly destroys the argument for Mythicism, hands down.


Of which, none of them are independently verifiable. Everything that came after the Gospels were written is suspect because none of these later sources can be verified to have gotten their information from a source other than the Gospels themselves.

Once fucking again, does copying a source get you two independent sources? Does copying it, and letting pass through a half-dozen different hands that all re-write it a little bit differently, count as a separate inexpedient source? No, on both counts.

You keep assuming that the later mentions are independent, and as such can be counted as corroborative evidence. I don't assume they are independent (because you cannot assume, you have to show they are independent), because it cannot be established that they got their information from a source other than the Gospels themselves. You cannot use accounts derived from the Gospels to verify the authenticity of the Gospels. Come on, this is not that hard to grasp.

Do you now, finally, understand just how shaky the foundation of your arguments are?



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  Does it conclusively prove that Jesus existed and was crucified? Absolutely not, but what it does is conclusively prove and demonstrate that the evidence for the argument for historicity is absolutely damning to the mythicist position.


Once again Free, take your strawman and shove it. Drinking Beverage



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  And that's life, and that's history. You don't have to like it, and it won't make one iota of difference whether you like it or not. Nothing is going to change the chain of evidence.


Once again, you entirely miss the fucking point.

What chain of evidence? That's been my entire fucking point, is that the evidence you cite for Jesus' historicity is so terrible. But you just keep yelling 'consensus', ignoring that not one of the sources you've listed would stand up in a court of law because it's all hearsay!



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Try skepticism. Also, do you have anything better than an Appeal to Authority?
Say's the one who appeals to the very same authorities to "accept some premises for reasons X and still reject other premises for reasons Y."

Wink

But this is a tired and outdated response. Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the authority is not actually an authority in the field in question.

Appeal to authorities does not conclusively prove anything either, but rather it provides a greater degree of credibility to the position held. It's merely something more to add to the evidence.


Or, you know, whenever we have good reasons to question and doubt the consensus. But you won't hear any of that, because it disagrees with the consensus! And around the circle we go...



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Notice however, that in comparison to the Gospels, the accounts in the Epistles (at least the mostly agreed upon authentic ones of Saul of Tarsis) are by and far the vaguest when it comes to any details about the supposed life of a living and breathing physical Jesus.
That may be true, but it is a non sequitur. The focus here is on the crucifixion of Jesus, which Paul states ad nausium.


Ad nausea, and without any details! Facepalm No mention of any personal facts, no mention of his family (to be fair, made up people don't have families, except for made up ones). Just that Jesus was crucified for their sins.

Guess what?

The Book of Mormon goes on ad nausea about the existence of the Golden Plates and the angel Moroni...

Star Wars goes on ad nausea about the existence of the Force...

Should we start granting the same level of voracity to their claims as well?



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "...the textual evidence in his works indicates he was most likely a very young contemporary of Jesus." - Citation needed. You cannot have an estimated birth years after the death of Jesus, as established by mainstream consensus, while simultaneously arguing that they are wrong and he was a "young contemporary of Jesus".
There's actually no consensus on the birth date of Josephus. The reality is no one knows. They say circa AD 37, but until you read his works and understand that he was a General in the Jewish military in the late AD 60s early AD70s, it certainly gives one pause to doubt his age.

To become a General is usually reserved for those of greater age. Josephus would have been in his late 20s and early 30s when the revolt broke out if he was born in Ad 37. It's barely possible, and highly unlikely that he made it to the rank of General in his 20s or early 30s.

The evidence is all textual. No one actually discusses this, so there are no citations available.


If only you applied that same level of skepticism to Jesus, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now... Facepalm



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Clement of Alexandria? Or Clement of Rome? Because the previous was born around 150 CE, and the later was a Pope during the end of the first century. Neither would have been themselves eye witnesses, and even the chances of Clement of Rome possibly making contact with a supposed eyewitness (assuming the Crucifixion happened in 33AD) would be slim to none.
Clement of Rome died near the end of the 1st century, at AD 98 - 99. Tertullian, born a few decades later, says that Clement knew the apostle Peter, and was consecrated by him. The Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes) lists Clement at 3rd or 4th behind Peter as the Bishop of Rome, and was known to be a leading member in that church before he became the Bishop.

This means he knew Peter, and knew Paul also. Paul listed a Clement as one who was with him in Php 4:3, but it is not conclusive if this is the same Clement with Paul.

Seeing the Clement died near the end of the 1st century, and considering all other evidence, we can rest assured that the argument that he knew the apostle Peter is solid, and also he was almost certainly a contemporary of Jesus given the date of his death indicating he would need to be only about 65 years old to not be a contemporary.


And all of that would be immediately thrown out in a court of law as hearsay. Clement is, under the best case scenario, three times removed from Jesus. Is this really the best evidence you have? Yet you're surprised that I'm so skeptical of claims built upon such feeble foundations?



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Uh no, I was actually pointing out that's exactly what you are doing, if you're going to attempt to argue that the Gospels are reliable sources of historical information rather than the propagandist faith literature that they apparently are.
You are not understanding presentism here, that's clear to me. Read it again.

They are reliable sources for historical information on the crucifixion of Jesus since all of them can be corroborated with external non biblical sources. That is about the only thing in the gospels that has any degree of factual historical validity, aside from them demonstrating belief systems.

Most scholars also think the baptism of Jesus is a historical event, but I for the life of me cannot understand why.


Except that they don't corroborate, because people are not apply the same standard to Jesus because he is Jesus. Independently verifiable? Do you even know what would count as independently verifiable? A Roman account from the time, listing those executed by Pilate, during his time in Judea. That would count as an independent corroboration, and you have nothing close to that.

The evidence is shit, and citing the consensus does us fuck all because the consensus is built upon shit. Yell 'consensus' all you want, I don't trust the consensus. When you build a consensus upon unverifiable hearsay and claim it is corroborative, I cannot trust the consensus.



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A history with no independent corroboration that can be established outside of later Christian source. It is a flimsy history indeed.
And here is that denialism again. Such a nasty bad habit.
Big Grin

Your problem is you think you can just toss out the entire NT. Sorry, but that is not acceptable to anyone in this field. You don't eliminate evidence just because you don't like it.


Shit evidence is shit, consensus or no. But really, keep throwing the consensus back at me, it's such a persuasive argument... Drinking Beverage



(11-03-2015 05:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 02:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nope. Tacitius also cannot be established as independent from the Gospels, seeing as he came 20 years after Josephus, who just happens to suffer from the same problem.

Neither can be counted as independent corroboration of the Gospels, simple as that.
Dude, do you even understand what is happening here? Let me show you:

I said the following:

Quote:2. Tacitus has him crucified.

You then replied to that with this:

Quote:And considering when it was written (20 years after Josephus), his sources were Christians, and their sources were the Gospels; and once again, the Gospels are not reliable as they are decades (if not centuries) after the supposed events and not written by eye witnesses. It is not corroborative evidence.

I replied to that with this:

Quote:Can you prove his sources were Christians? Have you considered the fact that Tacitus was writing Roman history and not Christian history? Why would a Roman who was writing Roman history go to the hated Jewish sect of Christians and write their history instead of Roman history?

Since he mentions Pilate- a Roman- don't you think it would destroy his credibility by using a high ranking Roman official if the event regarding Pilate never actually happened?

We were talking about Tacitus, and you stated that Tacitus got his source regarding Christ from the Christians. I then asked you to prove that his sources were from the Christians, and you then replied to that with the following:

Quote:The fact of the matter is, Josephus fails to provide evidence that they are not. You cannot just assume that they are independent corroborations, especially given that the existence of the Gospels predate the mention in Josephus by decades (and their appearance in his work by centuries). Josephus cannot be used as an independent corroboration of the Gospels, because it is very probable that his source of information (assuming it's not a forgery, something which is disputed) were Christians, who they themselves would have gotten their information from the Gospels.

Let's also not forget that for 500 years of Christian history, not one church father or writer mentions the Josephus passage, even though they quote him extensively elsewhere, like in regards to John the Baptist. It's not seen in the historical record until Eusebius of Caesarea, who is widely believed to have been the one responsible for the interpolation (especially considering that he inherited his copy of Josephus from Origen, who lamented Josephus not mentioning Jesus in his own writings!).


You cannot establish Josephus' writings as being independent from the Gospels, therefore it is useless for corroborating the Gospels.

Do you understand that we were talking about Tacitus, and then suddenly you had a brain fart by thinking we were talking about Josephus?

It happens, but fuck man ... it renders everything you are saying as completely non sequitur, and I haven't a fucking clue what you are going on about.

Start over. I'll wait.


You really are that dense... Dodgy

You need to establish that their sources were not Christians or the Gospels! Why? Because it is you trying to cite them as independent corroboration for the Gospels! For fuck's sake... Facepalm

All this time, all this back and forth, and you fundamentally don't even understand where the burden of proof lies!

If you cannot show that they are not derived from the Gospels, then since they were written after the Gospels were written and Christianity had been established, it is far more probable that their information just came from Christians who they themselves were quoting their Gospels.

That is the crux of the problem, in that neither Tacitus nor Josephus can be independently verified, yet you insist on assuming that their sources are not Christian or Gospel based! I'm not assuring that their sources were Christian, I'm simply pointing out that you are wrong to assume that they are not. Since we cannot know that they are not just quoting Christains quoting the Gospels, they are useless and cannot be used to corroborate the Gospels.


In order to be useful as independent corroboration, it us upon YOU to show that their writings did not come from Christian sources and the Gospels themselves.


Good luck with that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: