Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2014, 11:31 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 12:07 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(26-01-2014 10:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 04:15 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Let me digress for a moment to address a lie you told earlier, which is that Tacitus never mentioned Moses.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboar...chap18.htm

Let me know if you need more.


Okay so you found it in Histories, but not in the book we are talking about, which is Annals. And you decided to call me a “liar” instead of quoting where I said I could be wrong, as the following post indicates:

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

Also, you should be aware … Moses was not a Jew. In fact, he was a Hebrew. Judaism did not exist at the purported time of Moses.

And it should be noted that Tacitus' version of Moses bears very little resemblance to the Hebrew Moses. In fact, his version of Moses is more comparable to what we know to be in the Bibliotheca Historica


Quote:The problem with your "argument to the best evidence" is that it doesn't actually argue to the best evidence.

Yes it does. Since your arguments provide no evidence at all, and my arguments demonstrate a great degree of supporting evidence, then the argument to the best explanation falls with me.

I mean … how the fuck do you ever expect to win an argument when you have no support at all for your argument?


Quote:Rather, it argues from the predetermined outcome. You're begging the question by assuming not only that Tacitus used sources, a prospect we would probably agree on, but that he used sources that would be considered reliable under today's standards that verified Jesus/Christ (you are drawing a distinction where I am not, confusing the issue for no reason) was executed under Pilate as a historical fact. That is far from certain, your "undoubtedly" comments notwithstanding. The fact is, you use the word "undoubtedly" to confer certainty on matters that are questionable at best, as I intend to show.

The word “Undoubtedly” was used to absolutely confirm the two points I made;

1. Did Tacitus use the authoritative standards we accept today in his scholarship?
2. Is there evidence that Tacitus independently verified … that Christus was in fact crucified by Pilate?


The answers to those two above questions is absolutely “undoubtedly.” The internal evidence clearly shows Tacitus used the same authoritative standards we would use today, and there IS evidence that he independently verified that Christus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and THAT evidence is the simple fact that Tacitus used the same authoritative standards we accept today. Because # 1 was verified via textual analysis, then # 2 is qualified.

Unless of course you failed to understand this elementary reasoning?

Undoubtedly.

Quote:The best source on the execution of Jesus Christ would have been a contemporaneous record of the execution, which would have identified Jesus and not Christ. A contemporaneous record, by which I am referring to a primary record, would have been produced at the time of the execution by Pilate and/or those under his employ. It is patently absurd that such records would not have identified the condemned by name, or that they would have referred to the condemned ironically by a title such as Christ rather than by the name Jesus.

And your evidence to support the existence of such records is where? Are you making yet another unsupported and ill informed assertion?

You are making plenty of assumptions here. Firstly, there is no evidence that the Romans kept any "official" records at all of the executions of individual non-Roman persons in Judea, ever. Not a single shred of such evidence exists in any of the available Roman sources from that period.

Quote:There is not one hint of evidence that Tacitus relied on such a source. Period. Any assertion to the contrary is wishful thinking.

Yeah, that’s fine. Especially since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Romans kept any such "official government" records of the sort.

You wasted your time on this, and mine.

Quote:Again, you are confusing matters by drawing a distinction where I draw none. You are also nitpicking and cherry picking, taking a layman's question and parsing words to avoid the whole of what my question entails, and deliberately ignoring that I included the notion of primary sources in my question. "That's another question," you said (I'm paraphrasing. I'll go back later and correct the quote if you wish." It's NOT a different question. It's the same question. But you decided to attack the question that you favored, because of semantic wording. I am not impressed with your approach or the transparent way you avoided key parts of my question.

And I am not amused with your incompetence at understanding that you merely asked the same question twice, and there was no need to post both questions when one would be suffice.

But hey, if you think they are different questions, then why the fuck does my response cover both of them when I was supposedly only answering to one?

Quote:1. The minutes of the session of the Senate are unlikely to have included the execution records of common criminals in Jerusalem. There is no indication that Tacitus reviewed 85-year-old minutes to verify the execution of Jesus. And it remains absurd to think that if the Senate decided to discuss the execution of Jesus 85 years before Tacitus wrote, that Jesus' name would not have been used.

Another assumption? Really? Okay, let’s see what evidence this assumption is based on.

0000000

Well damn. I see that once again you have provided not one stitch of evidence to support this assumption.

Argument dismissed.

Quote:This notion that they had no way to translate the names comes off as an ad hoc explanation of why Tacitus refers to Christ and not Jesus. The Romans took a fucking census. They knew how to transliterate Hebrew names, for fuck's sake. However, it does seem plausible that the Romans would discuss Christ (not by name) as news of the spread of Christianity grew. Such a discussion would be consistent with the mythical view -- the Roman Senate, in discussing the origin of Christianity, would of necessity repeat what Christians said about it. So if this is the source of Tacitus' information, it remains consistent with the mythicist position. Under the standards of the time, Tacitus would have done his due diligence. His concern was not the accuracy of the Christian origin story. It was the existence of the Christian origin story. Nothing more.

So here we have Tacitus telling us how one of the Roman Empires high officials by the name of Pontius Pilate executed someone called Christus, and you somehow think he wouldn’t verify the facts? He’s writing history which includes the actions of a high ranking Roman official, and you somehow think he got his story about what Pontius Pilate did from the Christians or the Jews?

I see you have now swung to defending the mythicist position, which I could see coming right from the beginning. Your lack of ability to effectively reason, and lack of education on this subject was a dead giveaway, and atypical of that tribe of idiots.

Quote:2. You have provided no reason to assume that such a record would include an official government account of executions in Jerusalem 85 years before Tacitus wrote.

On the contrary I did, and provided a hint at the actual physical evidence. But since you failed to investigate the sources that Tacitus used, and which I listed, then I will post the actual evidence later on.

Quote:3. No evidence that these speeches discussed the execution of Jesus/Christ. Possible. But not probable.

No evidence they didn’t, ether. You are arguing from silence here. And again, this was not about evidence regarding the execution of Christus, but of qualifying Tacitus' scholarship.

Quote:4. His use of any of those sources would be considered second hand by today's standards.

You mean “secondary sources,” and that is not in dispute.

Quote:5. You tell us nothing of these letters, their authors, or their credibility. And I mean, WOW, if he relied on slews of letters like this, then he had slews of potential sources of the Christian origin story that would not necessarily pass a current standard of reliability!

Please stay tuned …

Quote:6. Collections of other histories would be great. But you can't name them, nor can you identify what they said about Jesus. The notion that these histories contained historically verifiable references to the execution of Jesus/Christ is wishful thinking. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying that you cannot assert that they did. We just don't know, and that's my point, not yours.

Well, like I keep saying, if you had read Annals you would have seen that Tacitus names many of them. But … you did not read Annals, so how would you know?

Quote:7. Inscriptions are irrelevant to our discussion.

Except for the one that identified Pontius Pilate as the governor of Judea.

Quote:So what have you done here? You have provided us with, at best, the possibility that Tacitus relied on something we would agree by today's standards is reliable. And with that, you have given us a ton of potential sources to the Christian origin story that would not pass today's standards of reliability: "letters" written by who knows who discussing who knows what, Senate records that would have been more interested in what Christians were claiming about their origin than whether that claim was actually true, speeches by the emperors?!?!?!

What has been done here is to answer to the following two questions:

1. Did Tacitus use the authoritative standards we accept today in his scholarship?

2. Is there evidence that Tacitus independently verified … that Christus was in fact crucified by Pilate?

Undoubtedly.



Quote:Drive a truck through the holes you left open in that logic.

And I just shoved that same truck up your ass.

Quote:You're equivocating. I agree that he did pass all 7 qualifiers, but not to substantiate that one line. And here you're employing an inductive fallacy. That is, you are assuming that because his work overall is reliable, that every sentence in his work is equally reliable. But that's not true.

Since you agree that he passed all 7 qualifiers, then how the fuck can there be any answer other than, Undoubtedly?

No one is saying that every sentence Tacitus wrote is completely reliable, for that was never my point. My point, once again, was to quite simply answer the two questions you posed, and they were answered with supporting evidence.

The point was to provide information to answer the same two questions in bold print above, and those questions were both answered.

Undoubtedly.

Quote:Case in point: I am a journalist. I can tell you that when I write an article, I conduct interviews with primary sources, I look up documents, I attend meetings and events so that the accounts I give are firsthand whenever possible, etc. You can say overall that I am a trustworthy reporter.

But then you read my work and come across a particular sentence that is not properly sourced or attributed. You may decide to take my word for it based on my overall record, but you are perfectly entitled to challenge it based on what I left out of my article, AND THE BURDEN WOULD BE MINE TO DOCUMENT MY CLAIM. I do not get to say "well, here are my methods overall, so you should trust this one line." That would get me fired right quick. I have to say, "here is my source of information on this line; sorry I left it out. I didn't think it was a big deal." Or I would have to say, "You know what, I trusted information or generalizations that turned out in hindsight to be less reliable than I considered."

We don't get to do that with Tacitus, of course, given that he's dead. But that does not entitle us to presume the historical accuracy of this particular sentence. The best you can say is "it's plausible," but it's no more plausible than the alternatives that are consistent with the mythicist position.

Are you insane? How the fuck can you even possibly attempt to draw a comparison between a modern journalist- who can immediately make corrections to his work- to an ancient history book that is now etched in stone? This is a classic case of a fucking mythicist making yet another false analogy!

Don’t even try that fucking bullshit around here. People here are far too intelligent for it.

Quote:

That's splendid. It's also irrelevant.

It’s relevant because the textual criticism demonstrates that Tacitus cross-references his information whenever contradictory sources arise. This demonstrates once again how well Tacitus adheres to the same scholastic integrity modern scholars use today.

Yeah, it’s relevant.

Quote:Yes, but he says nothing about his sources on the history of Christianity, nor does he pretend for even a moment to be providing us with a documented history of the origin of the Christian cult beyond a throwaway line.

Do you think we can all just cherry-pick parts out of every history book and say, "where is the source for that," when the writer of the book clearly demonstrates what his sources were on the whole?

Where does it end? With every paragraph? With every sentence? With every word?

So, you are contesting JUST the part that mentions Christus & Pilate with your crazy reasoning, when if we applied your crazy reasoning to every single paragraph in any history book we could effectively eliminate history off the face of the earth.

Does that sound about right? Sure, let's use your so-called "skepticism" and get rid of history all together, okay?


Quote:This is the part you keep ignoring. Historicists act like Tacitus carefully investigated this line before daring to set pen to paper, yet the line itself betrays no such concern. He was writing about Nero blaming Christians for the fire. That was his subject matter. The origin of Christianity was incidental, and it seems beyond unlikely that he would stop what he's doing to hunt down Pilate's diary to make sure that, yes, he really did execute someone whose name escapes him but who referred to himself as some kind of Christ.

More assumptions, and no evidence to even support the reasoning.

More atypical mythicist bullshit.

Quote:There you go shifting the burden of proof again. It's not that there's no evidence he used hearsay. It's that there's no evidence he used primary sources. Get it?

Again you continue to fail to understand that we are still talking about Tacitus about the two questions you posed:

1. Did Tacitus use the authoritative standards we accept today in his scholarship?

2. Is there evidence that Tacitus independently verified … that Christus was in fact crucified by Pilate?


You keep wrongfully accusing me of “shifting the burden of proof” when I am not even asking a question. I am quite simply demonstrating staying on point, while you continue to evade the point.

Quote: Hearsay is as much a possibility as a primary source. In fact, hearsay is MORE of a possibility than a primary source, because we KNOW there was hearsay flying around at the time, but we have no evidence whatsoever that there were any primary sources!

And you continue to ignore the fact that already I listed ALL of the primary and secondary sources Tacitus used, so how the fuck can you even suggest that there was no evidence of primary sources?

Yep, mythicism is written all over you.

Quote:There is PLENTY of doubt! You just have to look at this sentence as critically as you would look at the book of Exodus or the first chapter of Matthew!

Still cherry-picking one sentence without looking at the big picture, huh? Once again, atypical mythicist bullshit. Lack of reasoning capabilities, and incapable of putting a coherent argument together.

Quote:In general, yes.

“In general”, that’s all that is required. Welcome to Ancient History 101.

Quote:In regards to this one line, no! You have not established that. You have not even come close. You are presuming, and presumptuousness has no place in this discussion.

Cherry-picking one line. Your bias is clear. Let me demonstrate.

Condering that you have already agreed that Tacitus easily passes the test of modern scholarship, then if the line named Christus was worded as "Braken," and Christians were named as "Brakenites," would you even question it? Or would you accept it as probable without a second thought?

That’s the difference between you and a skilled and disinterested historian. We do not view “Christus or Christians” through the lens of religion, atheism, or any belief or non-belief system at all. It wouldn’t make the slightest difference to us whether it was Christus or the Man In The Moon.

But it does to you. So ask yourself, “Why?”

Since all I can see as far as your other responses was “bullshit,” I think we can agree that the rest of what you said was, in fact, “bullshit.”

Now … about that “physical evidence” I was talking about earlier …

Let’s talk about Pliny the Younger.

Who Was He?

Quote:Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 – ca. 112), better known as Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny's uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate him. They were both witnesses to the eruption of Vesuvius on August 24, 79 AD.

Pliny wrote hundreds of letters, many of which still survive, that are regarded as a historical source for the time period. Some are addressed to reigning emperors or to notables such as the historian Tacitus. Pliny served as an imperial magistrate under Trajan (reigned 98–117), and his letters to Trajan provide one of the only records we have of the relationship between the imperial office and provincial governors

Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, consistent in his pursuit of suspected Christian members according to Roman law. He rose through a series of Imperial civil and military offices, the cursus honorum. He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and employed the biographer Suetonius in his staff. Pliny also came into contact with other well-known men of the period, including the philosophers Artemidorus and Euphrates during his time in Syria

What Did He Do?

Quote:Career summary

c. 81 One of the presiding judges in the centumviral court (decemvir litibus iudicandis)
c. 81 Tribunus militum (staff officer) of Legio III Gallica in Syria, probably for six months
80s Officer of the noble order of knights (sevir equitum Romanorum)
Later 80s Entered the Senate
88 or 89 Quaestor attached to the Emperor's staff (quaestor imperatoris)
91 Tribune of the People (tribunus plebis)
93 Praetor
94–96 Prefect of the military treasury (praefectus aerarii militaris)
98–100 Prefect of the treasury of Saturn (praefectus aerari Saturni)
100 Consul with Cornutus Tertullus
103 Propraetor of Bithynia
103–104 Publicly elected Augur
104–106 Superintendent for the banks of the Tiber (curator alvei Tiberis)
104–107 Three times a member of Trajan's judicial council.
110 The imperial governor (legatus Augusti) of Bithynia et Pontus province

Pliny was obviously a very important man. He was an Imperial Governor and was 3 times a member of Emperor Trajan’s judicial council.

Impressive. Here we have a man who had the inside line on law and order, and who helped create the laws of Rome. He was a very trusted man by Emperor Tajan, and what’s more, he was also a very good friend of Tacitus.

So what does Pliny have to say about any of this? The following is a letter that Pliny sent to Emporer Trajan:

Quote: IT is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them.

Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.

There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred.

An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances:

I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error.

They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.

From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.

In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

The dating of this letter is about AD 100, some 12 – 14 years before Tacitus wrote Annals.

This is the English version, but guess what it says for “Christ” in the latin version? That’s right, it says “Christus.” Pliny clearly says that the Christians were worshipping Christus as if he was some kind of divine person. The point here is that we now have two examples from Roman records of this Christus, and how he was referred to by the Romans as Christus, with no mention of the name of Jesus.

What’s more we can see how Pliny informed the Emperor of the capital punishment inflicted upon some of those Christians. He mentions of no record keeping of those punishments whatsoever. He simply just executed Christians like we would slaughter hogs down at the local meat processing plant. Isn't that correct? Or ..

Could this be an official Roman record of how Christians were executed whereas no other kinds of records were written? They just simply killed them, and that was that.

Pliny the Younger was an avid writer, and much of his many writings are available online. He was a very good friend and fan of Tacitus, and they exchanged many letters which are also available online.

Pliny had even more access to crucial Roman records than Tacitus did, since he was on the judicial council, was a Governor, and was intimately familiar with Trajan, evidenced by his many letters.

Did Tacitus’ sources regarding Christus originate from Pliny the Younger? Possibly, since both can be seen referring to Christus by the same name, but that’s not even the point.

The point is we have yet another official Roman record straight from the office of the Emperor Trajan which details the name of Christus … exactly like Tacitus referred to him.This demonstrates that the name of Christus was known among the Romans as being the person who was responsible for the Christian cult.

But hey, I know “mythers” well enough to expect that you will intentionally hand-wave this evidence away as if it means nothing. But the reality is, no matter what you say or do, this is yet another +1 to the equation, and when added to the +1 from Tacitus, the whole becomes more than the sum of its parts.

+3.

Undoubtedly

Free, you write

"The point is we have yet another official Roman record straight from the office of the Emperor Trajan which details the name of Christus … exactly like Tacitus referred to him.This demonstrates that the name of Christus was known among the Romans as being the person who was responsible for the Christian cult.

But hey, I know “mythers” well enough to expect that you will intentionally hand-wave this evidence away as if it means nothing. But the reality is, no matter what you say or do, this is yet another +1 to the equation, and when added to the +1 from Tacitus, the whole becomes more than the sum of its parts."

1. I don't get it. Where does all this vehement spite against "mythers" originate from? There was another dude (whose name I've forgotten) here on the forum perhaps six months ago who rabbeted on and on against "mythers" (I'd never even heard the word prior to this.) He too persistently made appeals to authority to justify his views.

2. Why all the excitement over Pliny mentioning Christus? We have oodles of Christ's! Paul, writing in the 50s and 60s repeatedly mentions Christ. Marcion, Paul's number one fan, talks about "Isu Chrestos." Neither of them were referring to a flesh and blood Jewish peasant called Jesus.
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
27-01-2014, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 08:22 AM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: Jesus myth
Free, your shifting of the burden of proof has grown tiresome. You demand evidence while providing none. You are proving propositions that are not in question. You are actually demanding I produce evidence that would not exist if the mythicists position is correct! What you don't realize is that YOUR failure to produce the very evidence you demand strengthens the mythicists' position.

Meanwhile, you cite Pliny as though he adds to this discussion when he does not, which really leads me to question whether you really understand what the issues are being discussed.

I called your comment on Moses a lie because I don't think you're approaching this conversation honestly. I think my assessment has been validated. Your chief problem is that you do not respect other people enough to listen to what they're actually saying, so you talk past them as if they're not worth your time. I suggest you get off your high horse and start learning to treat people with respect.

Tacitus mentioned Moses. I don't know whether he drew any distinction between Jews and Hebrews. It would be your burden to show that he did, in any event. But you said he didn't mention Moses at all. Then I point out that he did, and you talk about the Annals as opposed to the histories. This you do after accusing ME of moving the goalposts. Think about that.


Final point: I'm not a mythicist. My argument has been simply that Tacitus is of no use to this discussion, your insistence notwithstanding. And your defense of the historical value of that line bears out what I am saying, because you are talking about everything BUT that line. That has been my only point. So when you say I have taken the mythicist position, if you are speaking as a matter of argument, you are correct. But if you are actually calling me a mythicist, then you're wrong and missing the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
27-01-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Might I interject something? Atheism is mythunderstood. Now you may continue Smile

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phil Hill's post
27-01-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Jesus myth
I was sincerely debating whether to address Free's most recent lengthy post point-for-point, but I really shouldn't. Instead, I'm going to summarize a couple of points I think he's missing:

Referring to Pliny actually substantiates the mythicist position rather than the historicist. Pliny's reference to Christians, as has been pointed out, does not lend credibility to the notion that Jesus/Christ existed in history. It only lends credibility to the notion that Christians existed before the time Pliny was writing. This was never in dispute.

Remember, the central question in all of this is, "Did Jesus of Nazareth exist?" That's it.

Free has established conclusively that Christianity existed and that they worshiped Christ. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but no shit. No one's arguing with that.

The mythicist position is that Christianity began as a pure myth and evolved into one that (allegedly) took place in a fixed place and time in history (but not really). The mythicist position is that if one were to search for a primary record of the existence of Christ, one would come up empty. And yes, that's primary record by the way we define that term today.

What Free calls "primary records" are not primary records at all. They are secondary AT BEST. Look back at everything he calls a primary record. I defy you to find one record that qualifies as primary by today's standard.

Every reference to Christ that Free mentions is consistent with the mythicist position. Think about that. Every single one. Pliny? PLEASE! Not even close. If Tacitus was relying on Pliny (which, by the way, is HIGHLY likely), then the case is closed and the mythicist position wins [as far as the value of Tacitus' one line is concerned].

I keep getting accused of cherry-picking the one line of Tacitus, but I think I have demonstrated that this "cherry-picking" is completely warranted! That line only confirms the existence of a Christian narrative about the origin of the sect. In order to believe that line confirms the history itself, one would have to make a huge number of unwarranted assumptions, which Free gladly makes! He elevates secondary records and calls them primary (disingenuously, as the error has been pointed out to him numerous times).

Nothing that Free wrote leads to the conclusion that Tacitus independently verified, conclusively, that Pilate had Jesus/Christ executed. Nothing. Tacitus appears to have independently verified that this was the narrative. Again, no shit. That's not in question. The question is the historicity of the narrative, not whether the narrative existed.

Free is equivocating by changing the definition of primary record to suit his need. It is fundamentally dishonest. He knows damn well that no such records exist, and he knows damn well that Tacitus provides us with no indication that they ever did. Tacitus confirms the existence of the narrative. He does not confirm the substance of it (nor does he intend to -- he is writing about an entirely different subject, and this one sentence is tangential to the substance of what he is writing, which makes the "cherry-picking" on standards perfectly fair game).

If I, as a journalist, fail to cite my source on any particular line, you, as a reader, are entitled to challenge it and/or approach it skeptically. The burden is on me to document that line. We can't document that one line from Tacitus because he does not cite his source -- and Free gives us a host of potential sources that, by today's standard, offer no historically valuable evidence whatsoever to the proposition that the execution of Jesus/Christ under Pilate actually took place in history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
27-01-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(27-01-2014 05:37 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Free, your shifting of the burden of proof has grown tiresome. You demand evidence while providing none.

This is an out-and-out lie.

I have done nothing BUT provide evidence to support my points, while you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. From quoting Tacitus, to naming his sources, to explaining the Historical Method with links, and quoting from other relevant texts, the evidence I supplied is without question.

And again, you are doing precisely what mythicists do; deny, deny, and deny.

Quote:You are proving propositions that are not in question. You are actually demanding I produce evidence that would not exist if the mythicists position is correct! What you don't realize is that YOUR failure to produce the very evidence you demand strengthens the mythicists' position.

I am actually asking for you to provide any kind of evidence to counter mine, of which you have offered absolutely NONE. I have indeed provided the evidence needed to pass the test of the Historical Method, but each time I do, you move the fucking goal-posts by ignoring the evidence provided, and then demanding even greater evidence.

If you think ancient history always reveals a "smoking gun" then dude, you have no fucking business arguing about history, because you haven't a fucking clue how history is determined, and what has been accepted as genuine history.

Quote:Meanwhile, you cite Pliny as though he adds to this discussion when he does not, which really leads me to question your reading comprehension skills.

Really? You have the balls to say that when post after post of yours keeps whining about how Tacitus wouldn't have called him Christus, and instead should have named him Jesus, and then when I show you how yet ANOTHER Roman official who also calls him Christus, you cannot see the relevancy?

Here's your quote:

TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:The fact that he refers to Christus and not Jesus is sufficient to raise doubt that he was reporting from a primary record.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid475709

So, because your reasoning has obviously failed you, and you cannot understand that my reference to that letter by Pliny was to demonstrate to you that it was COMMON among the Roman officials to refer to him as Christus and not Jesus, you end up saying Pliny's letter demonstrates nothing?

Really?

Again, just another attempt to hand-wave evidence away like a typical myther, except it is so easily exposed.

Laughat

Quote:I called your comment on Moses a lie because I don't think you're approaching this conversation honestly.

No you called it a lie to simply smite me, despite me stating that I could be wrong; despite the fact that this discussion was about Annals; despite the fact that Tacitus' mention of this Moses bears little resemblance to the Hebrew Moses, despite the fact that Moses was a Hebrew and not a Jew, and finally, despite the fact that Tacitus was quite clear that he was only reporting a legend named "Moyses," (Latin Spelling) which comes from the Egyptian account, and not the Hebrew account.

Yeah, that's why you called me a liar. Big Grin


Quote: I think my assessment has been validated.

Somehow you think you validated your unqualified opinion by ignoring evidence, dismissing obvious points, calling people liars when they are not lying at all, providing no evidence yourself, and making completely unreasonable demands (moving the goal posts) for evidence concerning one single line of text?

Really?

Big Grin

Quote:Your chief problem is that you do not respect other people enough to listen to what they're actually saying, so you talk past them as if they're not worth your time.

If that were true I wouldn't have learned a single thing about history or the historical method used to determine it. I did not ignore anything you say, for on the contrary I took everything you said head-on, evidenced by my quotes of you, and my responses to those quotes.

YOUR problem is that YOU utterly and miserably failed to recognize not only the evidence provided, but the reasoning behind the "Argument To The Best Explanation" procedure.

You utterly fail to recognize that ancient history does not root itself in absolutes, for the best it can do is approximate the truth as closely as possible. Your demands on how history should be determined might work on modern history, but when it comes to ancient history those demands are completely unreasonable. In this respect you are guilty of numerous logical fallacies not the least of which is called "Presentism."

Quote: I suggest you get off your high horse and start learning to treat people with respect.

Says the one who maliciously called me a liar when it's been demonstrated that I was not lying at all. Says the one who ignores evidence provided to counter your points by claiming it's not evidence at all, when it so obviously is. Says the one who offers unqualified opinions and refuses to support them, while ignoring the fact that his adversary is providing supporting evidence.

I am not on any high horse; I am firmly grounded in ascertaining the truth as closely as possible, while your intention is to bury it all in the name of your militant atheism.

Quote:Tactics mentioned Moses. I don't know whether he drew any distinction between Jews and Hebrews. It would be your burden to show that he did, in any event. But you said he didn't mention Moses at all. Then I point out that he did, and you talk about the Annals as opposed to the histories. This you do after accusing ME of moving the goalposts. It's hypocrisy.

If your reasoning abilities are so inept as to not understand that we were speaking about Annals and not another book, then who can help you? If your lack of research and knowledge lead you to believe that Tacitus was speaking of the Hebrew story of Moses, and not the Egyptian version, then who can help you? If you do not understand that Tacitus was not speaking about a "Jew" when he spoke of this "Moyses," who can help you? And finally, the fact that you couldn't even investigate that Tacituis was speaking of a legendary character as opposed to verified real "Jew," then who the fuck can help you, dude?

Quote:Final point: I'm not a mythicist. My argument has been simply that Tacitus is of no use to this discussion, your insistence notwithstanding. That has been my only point. So when you say I have taken the mythicists position, if you are speaking as a matter of argument, you are correct. But if you are actually calling me a mythicist, then you're wrong. And a bit of a jerk about it, to be frank.

You are a myther, that was obvious right from the beginning. I mean, your own reasoning above demonstrates how fucking contradictory you actually are. Here you say, "I have taken the mythicists position," yet deny you are a mythicist?

Huh?

Whatever ...

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
27-01-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Lolz. Lover's quarrel. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(27-01-2014 09:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Lolz. Lover's quarrel. Tongue

He's okay. I don't dislike the guy, only what he so obviously represents, which was demonstrated in my previous post.

It's been a long time since I vented on this subject, since for the most part I find it boring lately. It's been done so many times, yet for some reason I needed an excuse to re-enter these types of discussions so that my position on these subjects doesn't get too rusty.

Meh ... it all comes down to arguing about some religious idiot who was strung up on a couple of sticks in 1st century Judea. I believe it happened, and he doesn't.

It's that simple.

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
27-01-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(27-01-2014 09:27 AM)Free Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 05:37 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Free, your shifting of the burden of proof has grown tiresome. You demand evidence while providing none.

This is an out-and-out lie.

I have done nothing BUT provide evidence to support my points, while you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. From quoting Tacitus, to naming his sources, to explaining the Historical Method with links, and quoting from other relevant texts, the evidence I supplied is without question.

You have supplied evidence that Tacitus used sources, which was never in question. You have provided no evidence that those sources were reliable to address the question at hand. You're dancing around that point.

Quote:And again, you are doing precisely what mythicists do; deny, deny, and deny.

No, I am doing what skeptics do: question, question, question.

Quote:
Quote:You are proving propositions that are not in question. You are actually demanding I produce evidence that would not exist if the mythicists position is correct! What you don't realize is that YOUR failure to produce the very evidence you demand strengthens the mythicists' position.

I am actually asking for you to provide any kind of evidence to counter mine, of which you have offered absolutely NONE. I have indeed provided the evidence needed to pass the test of the Historical Method, but each time I do, you move the fucking goal-posts by ignoring the evidence provided, and then demanding even greater evidence.

Your evidence is tangential to the point. I am not moving the goalposts at all. I have asked or the same evidence all along, and you have failed to provide it all along. You've given evidence of propositions that are not in question, but you have avoided the central point of the whole argument. All you have proved is that there was a Christian narrative at the time Tacitus was writing. That's it. And that was never in question.

Quote:If you think ancient history always reveals a "smoking gun" then dude, you have no fucking business arguing about history, because you haven't a fucking clue how history is determined, and what has been accepted as genuine history.

This is how clueless you are. Not only do you mischaracterize my position, but you reinforce it in the process. Tacitus' one line here is not a smoking gun. It's just not. And the issue of "what has been accepted" is precisely what's in question, so you have to stop begging the question and start answering the question at hand. You haven't. You've answered AROUND the question, but you've avoided the real question here.

Quote:
Quote:Meanwhile, you cite Pliny as though he adds to this discussion when he does not, which really leads me to question your reading comprehension skills.

Really? You have the balls to say that when post after post of yours keeps whining about how Tacitus wouldn't have called him Christus, and instead should have named him Jesus, and then when I show you how yet ANOTHER Roman official who also calls him Christus, you cannot see the relevancy?

No, YOU do not see the IRRELEVANCY, because you are answering a different question. If Tacitus were relying on a primary record, that primary record would have referred to Jesus. If Tacitus were referring to "records" that referred to Christ, those records would by definition NOT be primary (unless you change the definition of a primary record, which you have repeatedly and shamelessly done). So when you show me previous records that have Roman officials referring to Christ, all you are doing is showing me that non-primary references to Christ existed, WHICH WAS NEVER IN FUCKING QUESTION and which I already accounted for in my argument! So I am not moving the goalpost at all. You are declaring a touchdown even though you're nowhere near the goddamned endzone.

Quote:Here's your quote:

TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:The fact that he refers to Christus and not Jesus is sufficient to raise doubt that he was reporting from a primary record.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid475709

And that is not all I said. It is disingenuous to pretend that is all I said. It is deceitful.

Quote:So, because your reasoning has obviously failed you, and you cannot understand that my reference to that letter by Pliny was to demonstrate to you that it was COMMON among the Roman officials to refer to him as Christus and not Jesus, you end up saying Pliny's letter demonstrates nothing?

Really?

Again, just another attempt to hand-wave evidence away like a typical myther, except it is so easily exposed.

Laughat
Mocking my argument while distorting it is no way to prove your point.

Pliny does NOT establish the historicity of the CONTENT of the Christian narrative. If Tacitus relied on Pliny for his one line about the content of the Christian narrative, then Tacitus does not establish the historicity of the content of the Christian narrative. Don't know hoe you're not seeing this. It's not hard.

Quote:
Quote:I called your comment on Moses a lie because I don't think you're approaching this conversation honestly.

No you called it a lie to simply smite me, despite me stating that I could be wrong; despite the fact that this discussion was about Annals; despite the fact that Tacitus' mention of this Moses bears little resemblance to the Hebrew Moses, despite the fact that Moses was a Hebrew and not a Jew, and finally, despite the fact that Tacitus was quite clear that he was only reporting a legend named "Moyses," (Latin Spelling) which comes from the Egyptian account, and not the Hebrew account.

Yeah, that's why you called me a liar. Big Grin

This discussion was about Tacitus, and your comment was about Tacitus. If you were talking about the annals, you should have said so.

Quote:
Quote: I think my assessment has been validated.

Somehow you think you validated your unqualified opinion by ignoring evidence, dismissing obvious points, calling people liars when they are not lying at all, providing no evidence yourself, and making completely unreasonable demands (moving the goal posts) for evidence concerning one single line of text?

Really?
Really. You're lying through your teeth and missing the point on so many issues that it is becoming impossible to keep up. You are yammering on and on and on about everything except the sentence in question and what it proves. You're entitled to do so, but I am not obliged to let you get away with it. Accuse me of cherry-picking all you want, but the fact remains that Tacitus' line about the crucifixion of Christ offers no indication whatsoever that it was independently verified by primary sources. It gives no indication that it was independently checked out at all. You yourself said his source could have been Pliny, and Pliny offers nothing valuable to this discussion (which, by the way, I'm not even sure you understand at this point).

Quote:
Quote:Your chief problem is that you do not respect other people enough to listen to what they're actually saying, so you talk past them as if they're not worth your time.

If that were true I wouldn't have learned a single thing about history or the historical method used to determine it. I did not ignore anything you say, for on the contrary I took everything you said head-on, evidenced by my quotes of you, and my responses to those quotes.

You are not responding to what I am saying. You are nitpicking at particular wording and vocabulary to avoid the central question, and I think it's because you know damn well that the line in Tacitus establishes nothing useful to the central question of whether Jesus existed in history. At best, it confirms the existence of the narrative, which was never in question.

Quote:YOUR problem is that YOU utterly and miserably failed to recognize not only the evidence provided, but the reasoning behind the "Argument To The Best Explanation" procedure.

Because you are providing "evidence" to bolster propositions that are not in question. You keep missing the fucking point.

Quote:You utterly fail to recognize that ancient history does not root itself in absolutes, for the best it can do is approximate the truth as closely as possible.

Right. And we are entitled to recognize when and where history falls short of that goal. You don't just get to say, "That's the best we can do with what we have; we have to accept it." You should be saying, "That's the best we can do with what we have; I wish we had more but we just don't. That's unfortunate."

But you want me to accept as a smoking gun something that is NOT a smoking gun. It's not even gun-shaped! It's a thumb up and a finger out with a pew pew sound effect.

Quote:Your demands on how history should be determined might work on modern history, but when it comes to ancient history those demands are completely unreasonable.

That may be, but it entitles anyone to the conclusion that the line in question does not provide us with evidence that the historical incident in question has been independently verified. It hasn't.

Quote:In this respect you are guilty of numerous logical fallacies not the least of which is called "Presentism."

The accusation of "presentism" does not apply. I am not judging Tacitus as a good or poor historian, nor am I passing judgment on his methods. I accept his methods and recognize their limitations, just as I accept Isaac Newton's methods and theories while recognizing their limitations. Relativity theory would have blown Newton's mind. His work is indispensable to the advancement of modern science, but it had recognizable limitations.

Tacitus' work is of incredible historical value, but because his methods are not the same as modern methods, we have to recognize that it has its limitations: the historical value of this one line represents just such a limitation. It's unfortunate, but the reason we refine our methods is because the old methods are NOT "good enoug." We refine our methods to make them better. I am not holding Tacitus to a higher standard. I am telling you that you cannot draw conclusions from Tacitus based on the standards that he used, because you and I both recognize that his standards are insufficient to the specific question that we're discussing.

That's not presentism, sir. That's common sense.

Quote: I suggest you get off your high horse and start learning to treat people with respect.

Says the one who maliciously called me a liar when it's been demonstrated that I was not lying at all. Says the one who ignores evidence provided to counter your points by claiming it's not evidence at all, when it so obviously is. Says the one who offers unqualified opinions and refuses to support them, while ignoring the fact that his adversary is providing supporting evidence. [/quote]

You're providing evidence to support propositions that are not in question. You have provided NO evidence to address the specific question being discussed. In fact, you have all but acknowledged that there is no such evidence.

Quote:I am not on any high horse; I am firmly grounded in ascertaining the truth as closely as possible, while your intention is to bury it all in the name of your militant atheism.

Quote:Tactics mentioned Moses. I don't know whether he drew any distinction between Jews and Hebrews. It would be your burden to show that he did, in any event. But you said he didn't mention Moses at all. Then I point out that he did, and you talk about the Annals as opposed to the histories. This you do after accusing ME of moving the goalposts. It's hypocrisy.

If your reasoning abilities are so inept as to not understand that we were speaking about Annals and not another book, then who can help you? If your lack of research and knowledge lead you to believe that Tacitus was speaking of the Hebrew story of Moses, and not the Egyptian version, then who can help you? If you do not understand that Tacitus was not speaking about a "Jew" when he spoke of this "Moyses," who can help you? And finally, the fact that you couldn't even investigate that Tacituis was speaking of a legendary character as opposed to verified real "Jew," then who the fuck can help you, dude?

Quote:Final point: I'm not a mythicist. My argument has been simply that Tacitus is of no use to this discussion, your insistence notwithstanding. That has been my only point. So when you say I have taken the mythicists position, if you are speaking as a matter of argument, you are correct. But if you are actually calling me a mythicist, then you're wrong. And a bit of a jerk about it, to be frank.

You are a myther, that was obvious right from the beginning. I mean, your own reasoning above demonstrates how fucking contradictory you actually are. Here you say, "I have taken the mythicists position," yet deny you are a mythicist?

Huh?

Whatever ...

Wow. So you've never heard of a devil's advocate. I am not a myther. I have stated this repeatedly. But you call me a myther, and then bristle when I call you a liar. Shocking.

So here's the deal: A myther believes there was no historical person named Jesus around whom Christianity grew as a religion. I do not hold that position. I do not believe that position offers the best explanation for the evidence of the rise of Christianity. I am open to the idea, but I do not embrace it. I think it is the less likely of the two propositions (mythicist v. historicist).

Got that through your thick skull? Good.

Continuing: one of the arguments of the historicist position is that Tacitus, in his single reference to Christ being punished under Pilate, provides us with confirmation that this actually happened in history. The mythicist position is that this one line does NOT prove the content of the Christian narrative. It only proves the existence of the narrative. The existence of the narrative is, of course, accepted by both sides.

On that question, I have taken the mythicist position. That doesn't make me a mythicist, you twit. It means that even though I fall under the historicist camp, I think the mythicists are correct about what Tacitus proves.

So if you want me to stop calling you a liar, I would suggest a simple course of action. Stop lying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 10:16 AM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: Jesus myth
(27-01-2014 09:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Meh ... it all comes down to arguing about some religious idiot who was strung up on a couple of sticks in 1st century Judea. I believe it happened, and he doesn't.

It's that simple.

Yeah, except when you say "he doesn't," you're lying. It's that simple.

Someone tells you he's not a mythicist, you fucking accept that and ask questions. You don't say, "yes you are!" That's disrespectful, and I stopped accepting bullshit like that when I left both my cults.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
27-01-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Quote:
(27-01-2014 10:08 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 09:27 AM)Free Wrote:  This is an out-and-out lie.

I have done nothing BUT provide evidence to support my points, while you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever. From quoting Tacitus, to naming his sources, to explaining the Historical Method with links, and quoting from other relevant texts, the evidence I supplied is without question.

You have supplied evidence that Tacitus used sources, which was never in question. You have provided no evidence that those sources were reliable to address the question at hand. You're dancing around that point.

Quote:And again, you are doing precisely what mythicists do; deny, deny, and deny.

No, I am doing what skeptics do: question, question, question.

Quote:I am actually asking for you to provide any kind of evidence to counter mine, of which you have offered absolutely NONE. I have indeed provided the evidence needed to pass the test of the Historical Method, but each time I do, you move the fucking goal-posts by ignoring the evidence provided, and then demanding even greater evidence.

Your evidence is tangential to the point. I am not moving the goalposts at all. I have asked or the same evidence all along, and you have failed to provide it all along. You've given evidence of propositions that are not in question, but you have avoided the central point of the whole argument. All you have proved is that there was a Christian narrative at the time Tacitus was writing. That's it. And that was never in question.

Quote:If you think ancient history always reveals a "smoking gun" then dude, you have no fucking business arguing about history, because you haven't a fucking clue how history is determined, and what has been accepted as genuine history.

This is how clueless you are. Not only do you mischaracterize my position, but you reinforce it in the process. Tacitus' one line here is not a smoking gun. It's just not. And the issue of "what has been accepted" is precisely what's in question, so you have to stop begging the question and start answering the question at hand. You haven't. You've answered AROUND the question, but you've avoided the real question here.

Quote:Really? You have the balls to say that when post after post of yours keeps whining about how Tacitus wouldn't have called him Christus, and instead should have named him Jesus, and then when I show you how yet ANOTHER Roman official who also calls him Christus, you cannot see the relevancy?

No, YOU do not see the IRRELEVANCY, because you are answering a different question. If Tacitus were relying on a primary record, that primary record would have referred to Jesus. If Tacitus were referring to "records" that referred to Christ, those records would by definition NOT be primary (unless you change the definition of a primary record, which you have repeatedly and shamelessly done). So when you show me previous records that have Roman officials referring to Christ, all you are doing is showing me that non-primary references to Christ existed, WHICH WAS NEVER IN FUCKING QUESTION and which I already accounted for in my argument! So I am not moving the goalpost at all. You are declaring a touchdown even though you're nowhere near the goddamned endzone.

Quote:Here's your quote:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid475709

And that is not all I said. It is disingenuous to pretend that is all I said. It is deceitful.

Quote:So, because your reasoning has obviously failed you, and you cannot understand that my reference to that letter by Pliny was to demonstrate to you that it was COMMON among the Roman officials to refer to him as Christus and not Jesus, you end up saying Pliny's letter demonstrates nothing?

Really?

Again, just another attempt to hand-wave evidence away like a typical myther, except it is so easily exposed.

Laughat
Mocking my argument while distorting it is no way to prove your point.

Pliny does NOT establish the historicity of the CONTENT of the Christian narrative. If Tacitus relied on Pliny for his one line about the content of the Christian narrative, then Tacitus does not establish the historicity of the content of the Christian narrative. Don't know hoe you're not seeing this. It's not hard.

Quote:No you called it a lie to simply smite me, despite me stating that I could be wrong; despite the fact that this discussion was about Annals; despite the fact that Tacitus' mention of this Moses bears little resemblance to the Hebrew Moses, despite the fact that Moses was a Hebrew and not a Jew, and finally, despite the fact that Tacitus was quite clear that he was only reporting a legend named "Moyses," (Latin Spelling) which comes from the Egyptian account, and not the Hebrew account.

Yeah, that's why you called me a liar. Big Grin

This discussion was about Tacitus, and your comment was about Tacitus. If you were talking about the annals, you should have said so.

Quote:Somehow you think you validated your unqualified opinion by ignoring evidence, dismissing obvious points, calling people liars when they are not lying at all, providing no evidence yourself, and making completely unreasonable demands (moving the goal posts) for evidence concerning one single line of text?

Really?
Really. You're lying through your teeth and missing the point on so many issues that it is becoming impossible to keep up. You are yammering on and on and on about everything except the sentence in question and what it proves. You're entitled to do so, but I am not obliged to let you get away with it. Accuse me of cherry-picking all you want, but the fact remains that Tacitus' line about the crucifixion of Christ offers no indication whatsoever that it was independently verified by primary sources. It gives no indication that it was independently checked out at all. You yourself said his source could have been Pliny, and Pliny offers nothing valuable to this discussion (which, by the way, I'm not even sure you understand at this point).

Quote:If that were true I wouldn't have learned a single thing about history or the historical method used to determine it. I did not ignore anything you say, for on the contrary I took everything you said head-on, evidenced by my quotes of you, and my responses to those quotes.

You are not responding to what I am saying. You are nitpicking at particular wording and vocabulary to avoid the central question, and I think it's because you know damn well that the line in Tacitus establishes nothing useful to the central question of whether Jesus existed in history. At best, it confirms the existence of the narrative, which was never in question.

Quote:YOUR problem is that YOU utterly and miserably failed to recognize not only the evidence provided, but the reasoning behind the "Argument To The Best Explanation" procedure.

Because you are providing "evidence" to bolster propositions that are not in question. You keep missing the fucking point.

Quote:You utterly fail to recognize that ancient history does not root itself in absolutes, for the best it can do is approximate the truth as closely as possible.

Right. And we are entitled to recognize when and where history falls short of that goal. You don't just get to say, "That's the best we can do with what we have; we have to accept it." You should be saying, "That's the best we can do with what we have; I wish we had more but we just don't. That's unfortunate."

But you want me to accept as a smoking gun something that is NOT a smoking gun. It's not even gun-shaped! It's a thumb up and a finger out with a pew pew sound effect.

Quote:Your demands on how history should be determined might work on modern history, but when it comes to ancient history those demands are completely unreasonable.

That may be, but it entitles anyone to the conclusion that the line in question does not provide us with evidence that the historical incident in question has been independently verified. It hasn't.

Quote:In this respect you are guilty of numerous logical fallacies not the least of which is called "Presentism."

The accusation of "presentism" does not apply. I am not judging Tacitus as a good or poor historian, nor am I passing judgment on his methods. I accept his methods and recognize their limitations, just as I accept Isaac Newton's methods and theories while recognizing their limitations. Relativity theory would have blown Newton's mind. His work is indispensable to the advancement of modern science, but it had recognizable limitations.

Tacitus' work is of incredible historical value, but because his methods are not the same as modern methods, we have to recognize that it has its limitations: the historical value of this one line represents just such a limitation. It's unfortunate, but the reason we refine our methods is because the old methods are NOT "good enoug." We refine our methods to make them better. I am not holding Tacitus to a higher standard. I am telling you that you cannot draw conclusions from Tacitus based on the standards that he used, because you and I both recognize that his standards are insufficient to the specific question that we're discussing.

That's not presentism, sir. That's common sense.

Quote: I suggest you get off your high horse and start learning to treat people with respect.

Says the one who maliciously called me a liar when it's been demonstrated that I was not lying at all. Says the one who ignores evidence provided to counter your points by claiming it's not evidence at all, when it so obviously is. Says the one who offers unqualified opinions and refuses to support them, while ignoring the fact that his adversary is providing supporting evidence.

You're providing evidence to support propositions that are not in question. You have provided NO evidence to address the specific question being discussed. In fact, you have all but acknowledged that there is no such evidence.

Quote:I am not on any high horse; I am firmly grounded in ascertaining the truth as closely as possible, while your intention is to bury it all in the name of your militant atheism.


If your reasoning abilities are so inept as to not understand that we were speaking about Annals and not another book, then who can help you? If your lack of research and knowledge lead you to believe that Tacitus was speaking of the Hebrew story of Moses, and not the Egyptian version, then who can help you? If you do not understand that Tacitus was not speaking about a "Jew" when he spoke of this "Moyses," who can help you? And finally, the fact that you couldn't even investigate that Tacituis was speaking of a legendary character as opposed to verified real "Jew," then who the fuck can help you, dude?


You are a myther, that was obvious right from the beginning. I mean, your own reasoning above demonstrates how fucking contradictory you actually are. Here you say, "I have taken the mythicists position," yet deny you are a mythicist?

Huh?

Whatever ...

Wow. So you've never heard of a devil's advocate. I am not a myther. I have stated this repeatedly. But you call me a myther, and then bristle when I call you a liar. Shocking.

So here's the deal: A myther believes there was no historical person named Jesus around whom Christianity grew as a religion. I do not hold that position. I do not believe that position offers the best explanation for the evidence of the rise of Christianity. I am open to the idea, but I do not embrace it. I think it is the less likely of the two propositions (mythicist v. historicist).

Got that through your thick skull? Good.

Continuing: one of the arguments of the historicist position is that Tacitus, in his single reference to Christ being punished under Pilate, provides us with confirmation that this actually happened in history. The mythicist position is that this one line does NOT prove the content of the Christian narrative. It only proves the existence of the narrative. The existence of the narrative is, of course, accepted by both sides.

On that question, I have taken the mythicist position. That doesn't make me a mythicist, you twit. It means that even though I fall under the historicist camp, I think the mythicists are correct about what Tacitus proves.

So if you want me to stop calling you a liar, I would suggest a simple course of action. Stop lying.

I'll just do what you did to me in a previous post and leave it at that, since it's been already demonstrated that you don't have the education, reasoning abilities, nor a fucking clue what you are talking about, so ...

BULLSHIT.


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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: