Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 02:40 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  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.

Okay, you are suggesting that Tacitus would have used a Christian narrative as the basis of his remarks, so I will now ask another question:

Q: Is there any evidence to support the theory that Tacitus used a Christian narrative as the basis of his remarks in Annals regarding Christus and the Christians?

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, 02:54 PM
RE: Jesus myth
No, that is the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is, is there evidence that Tacitus independently verified by standards we would accept today as authoritative that Jesus was in fact crucified by Pilate? The answer by today's standard is no. By the standard of the time, maybe. So I can't blame Tacitus for thinking he had gone far enough, but that does not entitle me to agree that he did. He did not. He appears to have relied on a document that made no reference to Jesus, and a primary record would have referred to Jesus, not Christ.

So the question is not, can I prove he relied on the Christian narrative as the basis of his remarks? The question is, can YOU prove he relied on a record we would recognize today as a primary record. And the evidence indicates that the answer to the latter question is No. And as long as the answer to that question is no, I am justified in placing limited trust in the historical value of that line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
25-01-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 02:54 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  No, that is the wrong question to ask.

Why is that a wrong question to ask when it is directly addressing your statement of:

Quote: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.

On the contrary, it is an expected, and a reasonable question to ask considering your comments.

Quote:The correct question is, is there evidence that Tacitus independently verified by standards we would accept today as authoritative that Jesus was in fact crucified by Pilate? The answer by today's standard is no. By the standard of the time, maybe. So I can't blame Tacitus for thinking he had gone far enough, but that does not entitle me to agree that he did. He did not. He appears to have relied on a document that made no reference to Jesus, and a primary record would have referred to Jesus, not Christ.

This is a different question.

Quote:So the question is not, can I prove he relied on the Christian narrative as the basis of his remarks? The question is, can YOU prove he relied on a record we would recognize today as a primary record. And the evidence indicates that the answer to the latter question is No. And as long as the answer to that question is no, I am justified in placing limited trust in the historical value of that line.

And this is yet another question.

All I wanted you to do is answer the original question, which was directly related to your comment.

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, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 03:14 PM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: Jesus myth
It is the wrong question to ask because it shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the affirmative claim. You are the one making the affirmative claim. Therefore, you have the burden of proving it by answering the question(s) I posed.

My alternative remains a possibility only as long as your case remains unproved. Prove your case, the affirmative case, and my alternative is moot.

The problem is, Historicists have taken Tacitus for granted as historically valuable (I refer only to the particular sentence in question, not the Annals as a whole). But as we have seen, you can't take that sentence for granted as historically valuable. Too many questions remain that are unanswered or unanswerable, and they are reasonable questions. You can't just dismiss them and say real historians laugh. That's appeal to authority. Real skeptics wait for an answer, and don't take "trust me" for an answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
25-01-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 03:10 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  It is the wrong question to ask because it shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the affirmative claim. You are the one making the affirmative claim. Therefore, you have the burden of proving it by answering the question(s) I posed.

My alternative remains a possibility only as long as your case remains unproved. Prove your case, the affirmative case, and my alternative is moot.

The problem is, Historicists have taken Tacitus for granted as historically valuable (I refer only to the particular sentence in question, not the Annals as a whole). But as we have seen, you can't take that sentence for granted as historically valuable. Too many questions remain that are unanswered or unanswerable, and they are reasonable questions. You can't just dismiss them and say real historians laugh. That's appeal to authority. Real skeptics wait for an answer, and don't take "trust me" for an answer.

Not trying to shift anything here., but only responding to your comment. The questions I asked where directly related to your comments, but if you do not want to even attempt to answer them then no point in pursuing them.

I have previously answered pretty much all your questions, whether you agree with that or not. But when you make comments then why is it that you refuse to answer them?

Shifting the burden of proof goes both ways, but since I answered your questions already, I cannot be the one shifting the burden.

All I am doing is now asking YOU questions.

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, 03:32 PM
RE: Jesus myth
I understand what you are saying, but you have not answered my questions in a way that satisfies the questions themselves. That's what you and Historicists fail to see. You cite passages that have no bearing on the sentence in question, hoping by extrapolation to "prove" Tacitus relied on records for one line because he tells you he relied on records for the lines surrounding them. I do not deny that Tacitus relied on SOMETHING for his throwaway line on the origin of Christianity. I just want to know what it was. Whatever it was, it was clearly not a primary source by today's definition of that term. And as long as it wasn't a primary source, we cannot draw a conclusion about its value. Sorry. You may have responded to my questions, but you have not answered them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
25-01-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Shifting the burden of proof only goes one way. My alternatives only need to be possible and to fit the evidence. I have succeeded on both counts. You need to prove that my alternatives are insufficient to describe the evidence. You haven't done so. You can't. Tacitus didn't give you enough to work with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 03:34 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Shifting the burden of proof only goes one way. My alternatives only need to be possible and to fit the evidence. I have succeeded on both counts. You need to prove that my alternatives are insufficient to describe the evidence. You haven't done so. You can't. Tacitus didn't give you enough to work with.

Repost any questions you have asked.

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, 03:44 PM
RE: Jesus myth
No. You just quoted my questions on this very page.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(25-01-2014 02:28 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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?

"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?"

Yes.

Firstly, there are the writings of Paul. in my opinion Paul didn't think Jesus off Nazareth was his Christ. I think when Paul mentioned "jesus" we're looking at second century interpolations.

Outside the Gospels none of the first century contributors to the Bible specifically referred to Jesus of Nazareth... only the Christ.

Secondly there were the Marcionites, who didn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth. In the second century they were a more significant force then what became Catholic Christianity.

Thirdly, there were all the various Gnostics, some of whom probably had their own Christs, and various other docetists.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: