Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 12:02 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yep, they do, that's why i cited them, duh.

But were Philo and Josephus Pagans though?


Tacitus: "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"

Yep, Tacitus wasn't referring to Jesus Christ, but another Christus whose followers were called Christians (persecuted under Nero), who was also suffered the extreme penalty, at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. And this is all just an uncanny coincidence.

And if that seems too incredulous, just assume it was forgery because it would be inconvenient for the bullshit i'm trying to sell.

I tend to agree.

The "Mythicist" argument that Tacitus wasn't talking about "Jesus" needs to completely dispose of all reasoning and any other evidence to arrive at this exceptionally weak- and if you don't mind me saying- "utterly fucking retarded" conclusion.


Why? Interpolations by later peoples made on other historical works occurred. Why would you think that Tacitus writing could not have met that same fate? Which even if it was not interpolated later by Christains, as Charles Guignebert said over a hundred years ago.

'"So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless"."

Why would this still not stand to this day? Last I checked there was no more significant reasoning to suggest that it wasn't just hearsay to begin with.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
15-11-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  I tend to agree.

The "Mythicist" argument that Tacitus wasn't talking about "Jesus" needs to completely dispose of all reasoning and any other evidence to arrive at this exceptionally weak- and if you don't mind me saying- "utterly fucking retarded" conclusion.

Is that even an argument? Or one people are making up here..

I've read the Tacitus lines.. it comes off to me as proving that people believed Jesus existed. We know Christianity was spread around by the time he wrote and that people had the texts believing it... It doesn't really prove evidence he existed, it proves people believed in the story.

That's kind of a problem I've seen with historical arguments of that manner once you go a couple generations deep.

No, textual criticism demonstrates positive statements by Tacitus that a high ranking Roman Official- Pontius Pilate- executed "Christus," which means the Jewish Messiah/King- in Judea.

It has also been demonstrated ad nausium that Tacitus constantly referred to Roman historical records for his information. In fact, the part about Christus is placed within the section commonly known as "The Great Fires of Rome," and in the very first paragraph we see Tacitus writing:

"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts"

We see Tacitus accessing official Roman records and historical works constantly in his works, as he made it clear right from the beginning that hearsay was not acceptable. Here's is what he says in the 1st paragraph of Annals:

"The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus - more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed."

And what does he say about hearsay?

"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."

You can take that for what it's worth, but to historians, it is priceless.

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
15-11-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
It's priceless in parts.. it still has gaps. You don't know what he thought was truth vs what he only deemed as hearsay. You don't know all his sources and what validates his claims about occurrences before his lifetime. It's not wise to accept such information without applied skepticism.

"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
15-11-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yep, they do, that's why i cited them, duh.

But were Philo and Josephus Pagans though?


Tacitus: "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"

Yep, Tacitus wasn't referring to Jesus Christ, but another Christus whose followers were called Christians (persecuted under Nero), who was also suffered the extreme penalty, at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. And this is all just an uncanny coincidence.

And if that seems too incredulous, just assume it was forgery because it would be inconvenient for the bullshit i'm trying to sell.

I tend to agree.

The "Mythicist" argument that Tacitus wasn't talking about "Jesus" needs to completely dispose of all reasoning and any other evidence to arrive at this exceptionally weak- and if you don't mind me saying- "utterly fucking retarded" conclusion.

Care to elaborate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 12:27 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 12:01 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's priceless in parts.. it still has gaps. You don't know what he thought was truth vs what he only deemed as hearsay. You don't know all his sources and what validates his claims about occurrences before his lifetime. It's not wise to accept such information without applied skepticism.

History is not something that can be conclusively proven, and never will be. We can only evaluate what has come down to us and reach towards what is most probable.

Tacitus on its own proves nothing. But taken with all other evidence, it is a bombshell for historicity.

As far as his sources are concerned, he constanty names more than just a few, including the works of previous Roman historians, the Roman registry, other official Roman records, and anything else that was ROMAN.

But not once does he mention ever using records of the Jews or Christians in any of his works. He deplored hearsay and states as such several times.

So does it prove Jesus existed? Nope, but it most certainly adds a few ounces to the scales of judgment favoring the probability factor.

Tacitus was a very proud ROMAN historian, and therefore only used ROMAN sources to illustrate ROMAN history. Hence, the part about Christus is ROMAN history, not Christian or Jewish, or any other.

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
15-11-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And my response was nowhere else, that's as far as I'm going.

You haven't *got* there yet champ. That was why I asked for a citation. You made a claim. Since no matter how much you know I won't take your word for it, I want some citation, some *published paper* asserting the evidence for Jesus existence. If *you* wrote such a paper that's fine, but I want a peer-reviewed paper or book or journal article or *something* that backs you up.

Now as to you being a constipated twit, I *have* prima facie evidence of that, so I won't be needing a scholarly source.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 12:13 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 12:01 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's priceless in parts.. it still has gaps. You don't know what he thought was truth vs what he only deemed as hearsay. You don't know all his sources and what validates his claims about occurrences before his lifetime. It's not wise to accept such information without applied skepticism.

History is not something that can be conclusively proven, and never will be. We can only evaluate what has come down to us and reach towards what is most probable.

Tacitus on its own proves nothing. But taken with all other evidence, it is a bombshell for historicity.

As far as his sources are concerned, he constanty names more than just a few, including the works of previous Roman historians, the Roman registry, other official Roman records, and anything else that was ROMAN.

But not once does he mention ever using records of the Jews or Christians in any of his works. He deplored hearsay and states as such several times.

So does it prove Jesus existed? Nope, but it most certainly adds a few ounces to the scales of judgment favoring the probability factor.

Tacitus was a very proud ROMAN historian, and therefore only used ROMAN sources.

That's why I don't think it's rational to think his writings are any form of a bombshell or strong push for it. I think to believe that is being swayed away from still maintaining an open perspective to his actual claims and what actually remains relevant.

It is hard to conclusively prove, but that's not even the key here. His writings strongly give the proof to show that Christians existed. The fact of them being a group in his lifetime is established, but it doesn't give much evidence that what they think is true. Just like us being able to prove Joesph Smith existed with legal documents of his time, but not able to prove he had Golden tablets.

It's just not any significant additional evidence to say anything about who Jesus was or whether he was a person like described. Plenty of what even is thought to be obviously notable, such as weather or not he did come from a town called Nazareth is not significantly well confirmed enough to accept. It's not like we should automatically claim there is no Jesus, but acceptance shouldn't be so easily taken when it's still something worthy of skepticism.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
15-11-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 12:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 12:13 PM)Free Wrote:  History is not something that can be conclusively proven, and never will be. We can only evaluate what has come down to us and reach towards what is most probable.

Tacitus on its own proves nothing. But taken with all other evidence, it is a bombshell for historicity.

As far as his sources are concerned, he constanty names more than just a few, including the works of previous Roman historians, the Roman registry, other official Roman records, and anything else that was ROMAN.

But not once does he mention ever using records of the Jews or Christians in any of his works. He deplored hearsay and states as such several times.

So does it prove Jesus existed? Nope, but it most certainly adds a few ounces to the scales of judgment favoring the probability factor.

Tacitus was a very proud ROMAN historian, and therefore only used ROMAN sources.

That's why I don't think it's rational to think his writings are any form of a bombshell or strong push for it. I think to believe that is being swayed away from still maintaining an open perspective to his actual claims and what actually remains relevant.

There is nothing wrong with your reasoning here.

Quote:It is hard to conclusively prove, but that's not even the key here. His writings strongly give the proof to show that Christians existed. The fact of them being a group in his lifetime is established, but it doesn't give much evidence that what they think is true. Just like us being able to prove Joesph Smith existed with legal documents of his time, but not able to prove he had Golden tablets.

But the reasoning here fails with this analogy. Tacitus isn't making extraordinary claims such as Golden Tablets. He is simply illustrating Roman history. That is all he is doing.

Quote:It's just not any significant additional evidence to say anything about who Jesus was or whether he was a person like described. Plenty of what even is thought to be obviously notable, such as weather or not he did come from a town called Nazareth is not significantly well confirmed enough to accept. It's not like we should automatically claim there is no Jesus, but acceptance shouldn't be so easily taken when it's still something worthy of skepticism.

Agreed. Although I accept a historical Jesus, there is always room for skepticism. But with the current state of our knowledge and available evidence, the arguments against total myth are so strong as to tip the scales heavily in favor of historicity.

You see, I have absolutely no problem with the supposed Christian god getting his ass handed to him by the Romans in 1st century Judea.

Big Grin

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
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
15-11-2014, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 03:19 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 12:13 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 12:01 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's priceless in parts.. it still has gaps. You don't know what he thought was truth vs what he only deemed as hearsay. You don't know all his sources and what validates his claims about occurrences before his lifetime. It's not wise to accept such information without applied skepticism.

History is not something that can be conclusively proven, and never will be. We can only evaluate what has come down to us and reach towards what is most probable.

Tacitus on its own proves nothing. But taken with all other evidence, it is a bombshell for historicity.

As far as his sources are concerned, he constanty names more than just a few, including the works of previous Roman historians, the Roman registry, other official Roman records, and anything else that was ROMAN.

But not once does he mention ever using records of the Jews or Christians in any of his works. He deplored hearsay and states as such several times.

So does it prove Jesus existed? Nope, but it most certainly adds a few ounces to the scales of judgment favoring the probability factor.

Tacitus was a very proud ROMAN historian, and therefore only used ROMAN sources to illustrate ROMAN history. Hence, the part about Christus is ROMAN history, not Christian or Jewish, or any other.

The argument that Free states, that Tacitus does not use 'hearsay' seems to fail. How could we possible know for sure that he is being truthful? Simply because he says so? Or whether he was simply stating to such for his own benefit. So that others would be apprehensive of questioning his sources.

The fact is, it opens up a whole new area of questioning that simply has no way of being known. Where as I have also read that many historians believe his reference to the 'Christus' was simply a mistake by later scribes, when they were copying his works at a later date.

Also, if he DID have Roman sources, why would he refer to Jesus as the 'Christus' and yet not even mention his name? To me this could also mean Tacitus was referring to someone completely different. It could be any of the numerous preachers that stated they were gods roaming around that time and area.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've read the Tacitus lines.. it comes off to me as proving that people believed Jesus existed. We know Christianity was spread around by the time he wrote and that people had the texts believing it... It doesn't really prove evidence he existed, it proves people believed in the story.

So a Roman historian speaking of Jesus being crucified under Pilate isn't evidence of his existence?

How about when someone write of meeting his followers and his brothers, and the various conflicts he had with them?

If you want to argue for ahistoricity, you have make better sense of all these aspects than that of a historical picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: