Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: Jesus myth
"How Long Has This Been Going On". The OP laid out quite well the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. Then we have gotten 31 pages of parsing over word meaning and what biblical historian said which and what said that.

There is no clear non biblical evidence for the jew Jesus, this is not controvertible. One may make arguments from various directions but the facts is the facts.

In other words shut the fuck up christians you have no leg to stand on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 04:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 04:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  While Tacitus is considered reliable, we don't have the sources he relied on.
The chain of evidence stops at Tacitus, so it's less strong than it could have been.

Unfortunately most of those sources are lost. Yet the point I am making is in demonstrating that Tacitus did indeed use Roman records, Roman registries, and Roman Historians to research his works.

That's all that is really required to qualify the point in this argument. After all, some evidence is always better than no evidence at all.

Sure, but the Chrestianos reference reads more as a throw-away line. I'm merely saying that not everyone finds the evidence very strong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 04:07 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Notice that Tacitus does NOT indicate he is relying on records when he discusses Christus.

This argument fails the test of reason and also falls into the category of fallacies known as Moving The Goalposts:

Logical Fallacy Wrote:Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

I have also seen this same argument many times, and I will again show you the error of the reasoning.

The argument itself is often brought on by those who have a bone to pick with the existence of Jesus. However, you need to put yourself in Tacitus' shoes and view the situation from his viewpoint.

When we examine the entire section of the Great Fires of Rome, we notice that Tacitus does not state where he got his information from in regards to every single one of the numerous events. He makes it clear right from the beginning that he accessed previous historical records for his information, as well as the registries.

Therefore, when he speaks about certain things regarding Nero- yet does not name his sources for every single little thing- should we then doubt the entire historical record he has written?

If not, then why doubt anything he said about Christ? You see, the argument is singling out the part regarding Christ and trying to cast doubt on it, so using that position why not then single out the entire historical record of Annals and dismiss it all as well? Using the same argument against you, should we then just totally throw out Tacitus' Annals in it's entirety and call the whole thing bullshit?

How reasonable is that? You can't just cherry-pick parts of a credible history book and dismiss it unless you are prepared to dismiss the whole thing in its entirety.

Therefore, once again, the evidence clearly indicates that Tacitus used historical records regarding the execution of Christ, and unless you are prepared to cast out the entire Annals, you have no choice but to accept that the execution of Christ is just as authentic as any other part of the work.

And that is why the reasoning in that argument fails.

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
23-01-2014, 04:35 PM
RE: Jesus myth
That's exactly what I'm saying, Chas. I'm not deriding Tacitus as a historian. I am saying that this particular line does not exhibit any indication that the information was independently researched and verified through records of trials in Jerusalem under Pilate. The fact that he uses an anacrhonistic title for Pilate and does not properly identify the condemned weighs against his use of an official record to substantiate this (in context) throwaway line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: Jesus myth
This is NOT moving the goalposts! Come on, you know better than that! I said specifically in my post that there's no indication he used records to substantiate the information regarding Jesus' execution. I never, ever said he did not substantiate his information elsewhere!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: Jesus myth
More later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 05:09 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 04:36 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  This is NOT moving the goalposts! Come on, you know better than that! I said specifically in my post that there's no indication he used records to substantiate the information regarding Jesus' execution. I never, ever said he did not substantiate his information elsewhere!

Since I clearly demonstrated that Tacitus- right at the beginning of his recounting of the Great Fires of Rome which includes the execution of Christ- got his information from historical records and registries, then the question has been answered. Not only that, I also demonstrated- by using the exact same chapter where he wrote of the execution of Christ- that he did not use hearsay. Therefore, using simple reasoning we arrive at the following:

1. Since Tacitus did not use hearsay for his recounting of the execution of Christ, and ...
2. Since Tacitus states that he used the Roman registries and historical records within the same chapter where he described the execution of Christ, then ...
3. What is the most likely resource for Tacitus recounting of the execution of Christ? Pick one of the following:

a) He got it from hearsay.
b) He got it from historical records and the Roman registry.

It's not rocket science.

What your argument is doing is then cherry-picking a specific part of the Great Fires of Rome while attempting to ignore a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

And that is another logical fallacy. It is no different then quoting something out of context, and expecting people to arrive at an opinion based upon only partial and incomplete information.

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
23-01-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 04:16 PM)JAH Wrote:  In other words shut the fuck up christians you have no leg to stand on.

Another dumb fuck who hasn't a fucking clue what's going on.

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
23-01-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Incorrect, Free. You established where Tacitus got his information about the great fires of Rome. It is an error to extrapolate that he got his information about the origin of Christianity from the same place, as the information would not BE in the same place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
23-01-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Jesus myth
If Tacitus were citing information from Roman records of trials in Jerusalem, it defies logic that he would refer to the condemned as "Christus," considering that this was NOT the name that would have appeared in those records. And if he were identifying Jesus with Christus, it seems beyond reasonable to expect that he would say so. He doesn't. There is nothing in the passage inconsistent with the notion that Tacitus was merely repeating what was reported ABOUT Christians, and plenty of reasonable doubt to the proposition that he has independently verified the execution.

If it was an independent verification, where is Jesus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: