Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  On the contrary, if Tacitus got his information from the Christians, he likely would have used the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus other than the Greek and/or Latin name/title of Christus/Chrestus in identifying him.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, some that are probably reasonable - such as that Tacitus didn't speak Semitic language, and others not so much.

The oldest extant fragments of the New Testament, what language are they written in? I don't see why we would expect Tacitus to use anything but a Greek Chrestus, considering that whether his source was official Roman records, or hearsay from Christians, it would have been in Greek.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 11:35 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  On the contrary, if Tacitus got his information from the Christians, he likely would have used the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus other than the Greek and/or Latin name/title of Christus/Chrestus in identifying him.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, some that are probably reasonable - such as that Tacitus didn't speak Semitic language, and others not so much.

The oldest extant fragments of the New Testament, what language are they written in? I don't see why we would expect Tacitus to use anything but a Greek Chrestus, considering that whether his source was official Roman records, or hearsay from Christians, it would have been in Greek.

Well yes, this is just a discussion to examine possibilities, so assumptions are what those possibilities entail. But the assumptions are based upon what we know regarding Tacitus, and are reasonable.

Does it prove anything? Nope, not in the slightest. But proving it is not the point, because conclusively proving anything is virtually impossible in this field.

The oldest extant gospel fragment, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, is a portion of the Gospel of John and was written around 125, and written in Greek.

Regarding the habits of Tacitus, I post the following regarding his commitment to actual history and what he says about using hearsay:

From Annals, Book 1, Paragraph 1:

Quote: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.

Tacitus tells us that he believes that the histories of the Caesars was falsified, and that it is his intention to get the facts straight, demonstrating his commitment to genuine history.

Quote: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.

Tacitus hated using hearsay in his works. Not only that, we find what is seemingly endless entries of his stating that he was using the Roman Registries, the Registries of the Senate, Roman Records, and the works of previous historical authors in his works.

He not once ever makes a statement that he used any non-Roman source material.

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
25-01-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  ..., if Tacitus got his information from the Christians, he likely would have used the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus other than the Greek and/or Latin name/title of Christus/Chrestus in identifying him.

This is just not true, and I don't know how you can say it with a straight face. First of all, you're assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, and if his historical existence is what you're trying to prove in the first place, you can't use his existence as a premise to prove itself. But even if we do permit that premise, a Christian is as likely to refer to Jesus as he is to refer to Christ. There is no reason whatsoever to challenge the notion that the Christians on whom Tacitus relied would have been Gentiles, or that they would have referred to Jesus as Christ. On the other hand, there is every reason to challenge the notion that a primary document (look it up: I don't have the patience to educate you) would have referred to a condemned criminal by a glorified title rather than by his name.

Quote:All through the works of Tacitus he fails to identify one single Jew by their Jewish name.

Except Moses. Why do you keep leaving that out?

Quote:This was likely caused by his inability to translate the Semitic Hebrew characters into the alphabet if he had any of those documents , and also there is no evidence that Tacitus could speak any Semitic language.

So last time it was out of disrespect for Jews, but now it's just his own incompetence. And he says I'm the one who moves the goalposts.

Quote:The words Messiah and Jesus are alphabetic translations of Hebrew names and titles. In Greek and Latin, Christus/Chrestus are the virtual equivalent, and were words that Tacitus understood.

The odds are that the Romans knew damn few Jewish names of anybody, but a title of Christus/Chrestus- which carries the connotation of being a king- is something they would indeed understand in their own language.

So if we were to discover the primary Roman records of the trials and executions conducted in Jerusalem during the reign of Tiberius, we would find a document with no names on it? Absurd.

Quote:So, if Tacitus knew or even understood that Jesus/Yeshua was the actual name of the leader of the Christian sect, and if he knew how to translate the Hebrew name into the Latin at that time, he likely would have used the name of "Jesus/Yeshua instead of Christus.

Or if that name was in a primary record of Jesus's execution...

Quote:But there's no evidence whatsoever that he knew anything about the name of "Jesus,"

BINGO! There is no evidence that Tacitus knew the name of Jesus, which means there is no evidence that he used any source that would have identified Jesus by name, which means he was not relying on a primary record, which would have identified Jesus by that name and not Christus, and therefore YOU HAVE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DRIVE INTO YOUR THICK SKULL ALL ALONG.

Quote:and no evidence that he got his info from any Christians, which he obviously hated according to his statements about them.
Now here I think you have a point, but it's not a relevant one. Just because he didn't get it from practicing Christians does not mean he got it from a primary source. You just proved he didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
25-01-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay, so let's break down what I said.

"Okay, so if I see a chair in the room, and then say, "There's a chair in the room," <--the declaration, analogizing his "Declare."

"and everyone can see it," <--- demonstrates the property of self-evident, analogizing Tacitus' statement

"I should suppose that the chair is NOT in the room?" <-- analogizes the property of non-existence to counter his statement of "doesn't make it so," and suggests that I should then suppose that the subject (chair) which has self evident properties does not actually exist.

So, since the analogy begins with a declaration of "There's a chair in the room" to compare to what Tacitis wrote, and the subject matter was all about the existing self-evident chair being compared to the existence of what Tacitis wrote which is also self evident, should I then suppose that despite the existence of what Tacitus wrote (and also the existence of chair in the analogy) that it/they may not actually exist?

When things exist they are self-evident. Declaration of their existence does nothing to change their self-evident existence.

So I should suppose that just because Tacitus' is self-evident that it's not actually self-evident?

Really?

Drinking Beverage
Free, I have to agree with the others; this is a false analogy.

The chair in your analogy represents the writings of Tacitus, not the existence of Jesus, which is what you're trying to prove.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
25-01-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 11:56 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 11:12 AM)Free Wrote:  ..., if Tacitus got his information from the Christians, he likely would have used the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus other than the Greek and/or Latin name/title of Christus/Chrestus in identifying him.

This is just not true, and I don't know how you can say it with a straight face. First of all, you're assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, and if his historical existence is what you're trying to prove in the first place, you can't use his existence as a premise to prove itself. But even if we do permit that premise, a Christian is as likely to refer to Jesus as he is to refer to Christ. There is no reason whatsoever to challenge the notion that the Christians on whom Tacitus relied would have been Gentiles, or that they would have referred to Jesus as Christ. On the other hand, there is every reason to challenge the notion that a primary document (look it up: I don't have the patience to educate you) would have referred to a condemned criminal by a glorified title rather than by his name.

Again, all internal evidence demonstrates that Tacitus only used Roman source material for his works, that he refused to use hearsay, and that he loathed the Christians.

You need to understand that Tacitus was writing a ROMAN history book, so why would he source non-Roman works or hearsay for a ROMAN history book?

The argument favors that Tacitus used Roman source materials, and nothing else, for his works.

Quote:
Quote:All through the works of Tacitus he fails to identify one single Jew by their Jewish name.

Except Moses. Why do you keep leaving that out?

I said before, he never mentions Moses at all. If I am mistaken, please point out where.

Quote:
Quote:This was likely caused by his inability to translate the Semitic Hebrew characters into the alphabet if he had any of those documents , and also there is no evidence that Tacitus could speak any Semitic language.

So last time it was out of disrespect for Jews, but now it's just his own incompetence. And he says I'm the one who moves the goalposts.

Both are speculations, and both are reasonable given the evidence.

Quote:
Quote:The words Messiah and Jesus are alphabetic translations of Hebrew names and titles. In Greek and Latin, Christus/Chrestus are the virtual equivalent, and were words that Tacitus understood.

The odds are that the Romans knew damn few Jewish names of anybody, but a title of Christus/Chrestus- which carries the connotation of being a king- is something they would indeed understand in their own language.

So if we were to discover the primary Roman records of the trials and executions conducted in Jerusalem during the reign of Tiberius, we would find a document with no names on it? Absurd.

Pure speculation. We don't know. Since we find no records of the executions of any the Jews in any Roman official records, then we can say "absurd" until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, there is no evidence whatsoever to support any theory that the Romans recorded the names of their Jewish victims.

Quote:
Quote:So, if Tacitus knew or even understood that Jesus/Yeshua was the actual name of the leader of the Christian sect, and if he knew how to translate the Hebrew name into the Latin at that time, he likely would have used the name of "Jesus/Yeshua instead of Christus.

Or if that name was in a primary record of Jesus's execution...

Or if the primary record was a Roman one which also had him named as Christus, which is favored by the text itself.

Quote:
Quote:But there's no evidence whatsoever that he knew anything about the name of "Jesus,"

BINGO! There is no evidence that Tacitus knew the name of Jesus, which means there is no evidence that he used any source that would have identified Jesus by name, which means he was not relying on a primary record, which would have identified Jesus by that name and not Christus, and therefore YOU HAVE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DRIVE INTO YOUR THICK SKULL ALL ALONG.

Again, the primary source was most likely a Roman record of Pilate executing someone named Christus.

You seem to think that the only primary record that could be possible would have to be a Christian one. Since the Christians were a sect of Judaism, and it's a well known historical fact that the Romans hated the Jews, then why the hell would Tacitus use a Christian source for his ROMAN works?

Again, internal evidence suggests he only used primary Roman source materials for his works.

Quote:
Quote:and no evidence that he got his info from any Christians, which he obviously hated according to his statements about them.
Now here I think you have a point, but it's not a relevant one. Just because he didn't get it from practicing Christians does not mean he got it from a primary source. You just proved he didn't.

On the contrary, I demonstrated that the best argument is that he used Roman primary sources, and not the hated Christian/Jewish sources.

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
25-01-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Jesus myth
You still have not demonstrated that you know what a primary record is, so your distinction between Roman primary records and other primary records is suspect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Jesus myth
There may have been a record of Pilate executing someone named Christus, but such a record would by definition not be a primary record. Again, you don't seem to know what a primary record is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 12:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay, so let's break down what I said.

"Okay, so if I see a chair in the room, and then say, "There's a chair in the room," <--the declaration, analogizing his "Declare."

"and everyone can see it," <--- demonstrates the property of self-evident, analogizing Tacitus' statement

"I should suppose that the chair is NOT in the room?" <-- analogizes the property of non-existence to counter his statement of "doesn't make it so," and suggests that I should then suppose that the subject (chair) which has self evident properties does not actually exist.

So, since the analogy begins with a declaration of "There's a chair in the room" to compare to what Tacitis wrote, and the subject matter was all about the existing self-evident chair being compared to the existence of what Tacitis wrote which is also self evident, should I then suppose that despite the existence of what Tacitus wrote (and also the existence of chair in the analogy) that it/they may not actually exist?

When things exist they are self-evident. Declaration of their existence does nothing to change their self-evident existence.

So I should suppose that just because Tacitus' is self-evident that it's not actually self-evident?

Really?

Drinking Beverage
Free, I have to agree with the others; this is a false analogy.

The chair in your analogy represents the writings of Tacitus, not the existence of Jesus, which is what you're trying to prove.

The chair does not represent the existence of Jesus. The discussion was about the Tacitus writings being self evident, with the post about that being right HERE.

The specific quote of me in question is the following:

Quote:The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is in fact evidence to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and there is not one single argument posted here that can dispute that fact for the simple reason that it is self-evident.

That's the origin of the self-evident argument.

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
25-01-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 12:28 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  You still have not demonstrated that you know what a primary record is, so your distinction between Roman primary records and other primary records is suspect.

I didn't say which specific Roman record Tacitus used because it is not known. All we can assume from his works is that the argument heavily favors that he used a primary Roman record for his source material, and by no means used hearsay or any non-Roman Christian/Jewish source materials.

Again, it's all about evidence to support the argument, and the evidence supports mine.

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
25-01-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Jesus myth
You can call it self-evident, but that doesn't make it so. Seriously, how are you not getting this? You sound like those who say the fact that the Quirinian census is documented in Luke makes it so. You don't even see the flaw in your reasoning, and it's because you are not being respectful to those who are engaging you in this discussion. Your condescension is clouding your judgment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: