Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Free, since I'm obviously unqualified to debate the topic with you, I'll have to yield to your authority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 09:05 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Free, since I'm obviously unqualified to debate the topic with you, I'll have to yield to your authority.

In issues like this is not even a matter of debate. 6 of 1 ....

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
29-01-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: Jesus myth
See, when you are so fixed in your position that something is not a matter of debate, then you're not really inviting discussion. You want to talk AT me, be my guest. Doesn't mean I have to listen. Your 15 minutes are up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 10:59 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  See, when you are so fixed in your position that something is not a matter of debate, then you're not really inviting discussion. You want to talk AT me, be my guest. Doesn't mean I have to listen. Your 15 minutes are up.

Dude ... get over it. Move on. That Tacitus discussion has been done to death with nothing changing in regards to opinions. I rarely expect to change any kind of militants opinion in regards to anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

In my opinion- and extensive experience- some people want an unreasonable amount of evidence in regards to ancient history. And even when evidence is provided, it's never good enough for they then raise the bar wanting even greater evidence.

They just do not understand how determining ancient history actually works, and when they refuse to understand- or refuse to accept the methods- then there is absolutely no point in continuing the discussion because it just becomes a great big massive waste of everybody's time.

Ancient history is what it is, and you either accept it reject it. But one thing that will not change in regards to whether or not you accept or reject it; damn few people will ever give a fuck either way.

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
29-01-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Jesus myth
I am over the previous discussion. What I am not over is your condescending and patronizing attitude, still evident in your latest post. You do not respect people with whom you dialogue, then you bristle when they reject your attempt to further a discussion.

Anyway, as you implied, I'm too stupid to keep up with your astonishing grasp of history, so I might as well not bother dealing with you, your eminence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 11:32 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 11:30 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I am over the previous discussion. What I am not over is your condescending and patronizing attitude, still evident in your latest post. You do not respect people with whom you dialogue, then you bristle when they reject your attempt to further a discussion.

Anyway, as you implied, I'm too stupid to keep up with your astonishing grasp of history, so I might as well not bother dealing with you, your eminence.

No problem. Go ahead and enjoy your discussion.

Thumbsup

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
29-01-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  They just do not understand how determining ancient history actually works, and when they refuse to understand- or refuse to accept the methods- then there is absolutely no point in continuing the discussion because it just becomes a great big massive waste of everybody's time.

There's a reason History is a liberal art, and not a science. It's probably not a good idea to put too much weight into the methods, because even professional historians don't do that. History is a field where reasonable people can look at the same things, and draw different conclusions as to how persuasive it is in regard to a given premise.

In the case of Tacitus, you find it persuasive (a +1) toward the historical Jesus premise, because it's reasonably early and we have no reason to suspect Tacitus is just making things up.

I look at Tacitus, and it seems to me to be completely compatible with a mythicist premise, so it seems irrelevant to me.

Someone else might look at Tacitus and dismiss it simply because Tacitus was not even born until 56 CE, and is not a primary source. Imagine a world without the kind of widespread communication we have today, and someone is writing something today that makes an offhand mention of a person who is said to have died in 1931, but is worshipped as a god today. Would we presume that person is more like Thomas Edison, or more like Clark Kent?

These are all reasonable positions, so long as no-one thinks they've proven anything.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes toadaly's post
29-01-2014, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 02:22 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 01:00 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  They just do not understand how determining ancient history actually works, and when they refuse to understand- or refuse to accept the methods- then there is absolutely no point in continuing the discussion because it just becomes a great big massive waste of everybody's time.

There's a reason History is a liberal art, and not a science. It's probably not a good idea to put too much weight into the methods, because even professional historians don't do that. History is a field where reasonable people can look at the same things, and draw different conclusions as to how persuasive it is in regard to a given premise.

In the case of Tacitus, you find it persuasive (a +1) toward the historical Jesus premise, because it's reasonably early and we have no reason to suspect Tacitus is just making things up.

I look at Tacitus, and it seems to me to be completely compatible with a mythicist premise, so it seems irrelevant to me.

Someone else might look at Tacitus and dismiss it simply because Tacitus was not even born until 56 CE, and is not a primary source. Imagine a world without the kind of widespread communication we have today, and someone is writing something today that makes an offhand mention of a person who is said to have died in 1931, but is worshipped as a god today. Would we presume that person is more like Thomas Edison, or more like Clark Kent?

These are all reasonable positions, so long as no-one thinks they've proven anything.

The problem with this is that those who spent years on the study of ancient history and who utilize the proper methods to determine its authenticity; who have the education, techniques, and resources available almost unanimously agree on the genuineness of Tacitus.

Now, most people here are laymen. They formulate an opinion for a number of reasons, but their opinions are not qualified in any real sense of the word.

It is not unlike if you had to make a decision on where to take your computer to get it repaired. You can chose to take it over to "Uncle Bob's" house because he's been using computers for the past 6 or 7 years and he might know a thing or two, or you can it take to a certified and qualified computer technician with 20 years experience, and who guarantees the results.

But you know ... whatever. Blink

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
29-01-2014, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 04:48 PM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: Jesus myth
The genuineness of Tacitus was never in question (not by me, anyway).

The value of his line was in question.

You yourself said the line "doesn't prove anything."

When I elaborate on why I think the line doesn't prove anything, you rake me over the coals and insult my intelligence, listing a barrage of details on Tacitus that have no direct bearing on the question being asked, all the while ostensibly agreeing with me that the line doesn't prove anything, and then when I ask you what you MEAN by "doesn't prove anything" so that maybe I can get a better sense of what you're saying, you treat me (and anyone who might share in asking that question) like a gnat.

All the while your words seem to indicate a belief that the line does prove something. So I ask, what do you mean when you say it "doesn't prove anything"? What are your reasons for making such a statement, then going all out to defend the line against (what I believe is) the very contention you are making?

When you (condescendingly) asked me how I could say I'm "taking the mythicist position" while claiming that I'm not a mythicist (which, by the way, I'm NOT), I looked past your derisive attitude because I thought you asked a good question, and I answered it. I didn't brush you off or treat you like you were beneath me.

But in contrast, you responded to my question by insulting my intelligence and, to paraphrase, telling me to kiss off.

It's disrespectful, the way you talk to me (and I see from your ratings that I am not alone in this assessment). You can dismiss my argument all you want, for whatever reasons you want. But you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Toadaly totally nailed the issue in post 567.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 04:57 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(29-01-2014 04:15 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The genuineness of Tacitus was never in question (not by me, anyway).

The value of his line was in question.

You yourself said the line "doesn't prove anything."

Actually, what I said was ...

Quote:On its own, Tacitus proves nothing. But as part of the historical record, it's another piece to the puzzle that adds to the equation which adds up to favoring existence

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid475698

If there was nothing else ever written about this Jesus/Christus guy, then the line in Tacitus would be meaningless. But because we have other evidence which agrees with the line in Tacitus, then the line in Tacitus has value when added to the other evidence.

That's all it means.

Quote:When I elaborate on why I think the line doesn't prove anything, you rake me over the coals and insult my intelligence, listing a barrage of details on Tacitus that have no direct bearing on the question being asked, all the while ostensibly agreeing with me that the line doesn't prove anything, and then when I ask you what you MEAN by "doesn't prove anything" so that maybe I can get a better sense of what you're saying, you treat me (and anyone who might share in asking that question) like a gnat.

You need to understand that perhaps you did NOT understand the quote of me above. If you did, then you would understand my frustration and terseness with you. But if you are going to continuously take out of context the things I say in an effort to demonstrate your misunderstanding(?) of my meaning, then yes ... I am justified in concluding that you are doing it purposefully for the simple reason that you keep on doing it.

I tend to get disrespectful, hostile, and patronizing when people treat me with disrespect as such I feel that you have been doing. And it grows and a snowball effect is created.

So you have a choice. Discontinue, or this will continue.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: