Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:49 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 01:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand your understanding, and see how you can understand it that way. However, my intended meaning was "The mere existence of Tacitus' mention of Christus and the Christians in his Annals is ... self evident."

The subject of the post was "the mere existence."

But hey, I can concede to your point and be careful in the future to be more clear.
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Given the ambiguous nature of your statement, I thought that the phrase "it is self-evident" was referring to the existence of Jesus, not the existence of the manuscripts that mention him.

Thanks for the clarification. Smile

Edit:

(25-01-2014 01:45 PM)Free Wrote:  But you also need to understand that the quote of me you are talking about is not the quote in question. Click the link below and follow through.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid476282
I'm still not sure if I understand your position correctly.

Are you arguing
a.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because it is self-evident or
b.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because he is a credible author, because it wasn't interpolation, etc.?

All I am saying is that the very existence of Tacitus remarks regarding Christus and the Christians are self evident.

The only thing they "prove" is that those remarks exist.

However, what those remarks "support" is an entirely different thing.

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
25-01-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:57 PM)Free Wrote:  All I am saying is that the very existence of Tacitus remarks regarding Christus and the Christians are self evident.

The only thing they "prove" is that those remarks exist.

However, what those remarks "support" is an entirely different thing.
In that case, I think each and every one of us is in agreement here. Apparently, we all merely misunderstood what you were trying to say.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:57 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 01:49 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Given the ambiguous nature of your statement, I thought that the phrase "it is self-evident" was referring to the existence of Jesus, not the existence of the manuscripts that mention him.

Thanks for the clarification. Smile

Edit:

I'm still not sure if I understand your position correctly.

Are you arguing
a.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because it is self-evident or
b.) that the statement "Tacitus' writings are evidence of Jesus' existence" is true because he is a credible author, because it wasn't interpolation, etc.?

All I am saying is that the very existence of Tacitus remarks regarding Christus and the Christians are self evident.

The only thing they "prove" is that those remarks exist.

However, what those remarks "support" is an entirely different thing.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes

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
25-01-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Jesus myth
You all do realize this began on Pages 30-31, right? I actually went back and read this thread from the beginning again (yes, I'm a glutton for punishment) and the subject has changed more times than Tina Fey's wardrobe at the Golden Globes. Can we just move on? Even if Free conceded the non-use of the word Jesus meant what TwoCult felt, or if TwoCult acquiesced and said I see Free's point and it is a portion of evidence that could support the historicity of Jesus, it gets you no closer to anything. It's one minute point in a huge topic with too many layers. It proves nothing overall.

20 pages for FSM's sake!

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 01:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 01:57 PM)Free Wrote:  All I am saying is that the very existence of Tacitus remarks regarding Christus and the Christians are self evident.

The only thing they "prove" is that those remarks exist.

However, what those remarks "support" is an entirely different thing.
In that case, I think each and every one of us is in agreement here. Apparently, we all merely misunderstood what you were trying to say.

I simply assumed that what you and Chas were referring to what the result of THIS POST because it was immediately after that post in which TwoCultSurvivor replied to it with:

Quote:Declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid476283

Which was a reply to this specific statement of mine:

Quote:Just the mere existence of what Tacitus said is a +1 as evidence, and is added to the equation.

You can assert whatever you want in regards to what is self evident, but at the end of the day the evidence exists despite anything you assert.

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
25-01-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Jesus myth
The remarks do not support the existence of Christ. They support the existence of a Christian narrative, which was never in question. For the remarks to support the existence of the Jesus of history, Tacitus would have to have relied on what we today would consider a primary source. It appears unlikely that he relied on what we today would consider a primary source. Therefore I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Tacitus is of limited, if any, value to the question at the heart of the Jesus Myth theory.

It proves nothing, and its weight as evidence of anything is minimal (and I would go so far as to argue negligible). Historicists may, in fact, be correct. But in my view Tacitus neither harms nor helps their case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 02:14 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The remarks do not support the existence of Christ.

I'm sure you mean "Jesus of Nazareth," because the remarks do indeed support the existence of somebody who held the title of Christ.

Or am I wrong?

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
25-01-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: Jesus myth
You are correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 02:23 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  You are correct.

Okay, we are in agreement.

There is no conclusive evidence that the Tacitus remarks refer to Jesus of Nazareth as the one whom Tacitus referred to as being the Christ whom Pontius Pilate executed.

So let's speculate and try to gather evidence as to who else it could be other than Jesus of Nazareth.

So I'll ask a question:

Q: Is there any evidence whatsoever that anyone else other than Jesus of Nazareth was regarded as the Christ and whom was the originator of the Christians?

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
25-01-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Stop. No, we are not in agreement, and we're still misunderstanding each other.

Tacitus' remark supports the notion that there was, at the time he wrote, a Christian narrative that included a person known as Christ who was punished under the order of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus may have relied on sources he considered primary, but we would not consider those sources primary today. As such, Tacitus' remark is of limited value to any historic basis for the crucifixion story at the heart of the founding of Christianity. Unfortunately, we don't know his sources, so we are justified in placing limited faith in them.

I believe Jesus existed in history. I do not distinguish him from the person later referred to as Christ. But as to whether he existed in history or not, I don't believe Tacitus sheds any light. He tells us the story was out there, and that's it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: