More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2017, 05:09 PM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 04:03 PM)abaris Wrote:  And say, let's compare that to the story of Jesus. Are both accounts on equal footing?

Let's see one is a Caesar's own accounts of the military campaigns he conducted, where as the Gospels were not written by Jesus, but a compilation of oral, and written sources, and the perspectives of their individual faith communities, put together many years after his death.

So no, they're not on equal footing.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 05:39 PM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 05:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So no, they're not on equal footing.

But they start out on the same level. Both are in need of being checked, since Cesar didn't report the truth and nothing but the truth to the senate. He embellished his accomplishments, which brings us back the to genre of Vita. In this case an autobiography to make oneself look better than the actual facts warrant.

The difference being that we can establish the war against the Gauls to be a reality and we can even establish certain events Cesar referred to. We can even establish where Cesar lied or made his accomplishments look greater than they actually were.

In the case of Jesus, the slate is empty. There's no historical or archeological evidence pointing to or against his existence. It's only the gospels talking about him and a few roman authours mentioning that there's a sect calling themselves christians and worshipping a person who suffered death on the cross. Again, this has to be checked against the standards of the time, which means that these authors didn't have first hand knowledge but only the testimony of christians. Which means, there's no evidence, only hearsay and oral history.

That's the thing you have to keep in mind when dealing with these texts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like abaris's post
23-02-2017, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2017 06:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 05:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's see one is a Caesar's own accounts of the military campaigns he conducted,

Weren't you touting an eye-witness claim last week "a *fact* by its very nature".
By your definition above, and the *fact* you claimed last week, you just admitted Caesar is as good as Paul.
Or maybe you don't buy your own bullshit ?

Bowing

Laugh out loadLaugh out load

Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-02-2017, 08:44 PM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 05:39 PM)abaris Wrote:  In the case of Jesus, the slate is empty. There's no historical or archeological evidence pointing to or against his existence. It's only the gospels talking about him and a few roman authours mentioning that there's a sect calling themselves christians and worshipping a person who suffered death on the cross. Again, this has to be checked against the standards of the time, which means that these authors didn't have first hand knowledge but only the testimony of christians. Which means, there's no evidence, only hearsay and oral history.

That's the thing you have to keep in mind when dealing with these texts.

Not sure where you get the idea that historical evidence is only archaeological evidence, and first hand accounts. In fact any data or information in which one can logically draw historical conclusions from, constitute as historical evidence, or evidence in general, by definition

In fact the Gospels being four separate compilations of a variety of sources, lends itself a great deal to historical analysis. We have a variety of NT writings as well, We also have a first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples, and brother. We have Josephus mentioning James's death, indicating he was Jesus's brother. We have Tacitus indicating Jesus was crucified by Pilate,etc.. This is all evidence of course, because one can draw a variety of logical conclusions in support of historicity based on them.

Without evidence no logical conclusions are possible. It's evidence that allows one to draw such conclusions in the first place, what allows one conclusion to be more likely than others, that sets parameters on such conclusions. That allows us to recognize when certain conclusion stretch credulity, or are an excessive violation of Occam's Razor.

In fact to suggest that sources, all the data here, can be explained away in light of non-existing historical figure, starts to border on the ridiculous very early. Imagining jewish mystery cults, who believed and expected a non-historical messiah, who left no traces of their existence, or the greatest conspiracy theory known to man. When you want to go that route let me know, rather than whatever feigned agnosticism on the topic you're aiming for.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2017 07:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 08:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact the Gospels being four separate compilations of a variety of sources, lends itself a great deal to historical analysis. We have a variety of NT writings as well, We also have a first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples, and brother. We have Josephus mentioning James's death, indicating he was Jesus's brother. We have Tacitus indicating Jesus was crucified by Pilate,etc.. This is all evidence of course, because one can draw a variety of logical conclusions in support of historicity based on them.

Oh my. A Tomato giving a sermon. *As if* he has any authority on any subject. Facepalm
Totally ignorant bullshit. They are not four compliations. They are not independent. And they are not history. He is no scholar. He lies for Jebus.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Billions of Catholics claim Jesus had no brother, including scholars FAR FAR FAR more educated than you.
Carrier questions it all, and he is FAR FAR FAR more educated than Tomato. He's an amateur charlatan incompetent.

Quote:This is all evidence of course, because one can draw a variety of logical conclusions in support of historicity based on them.

LMAO
A deductive fallacy.
They are not evidence *because* conclusions can be based on them, IF they can be supported as evidence, THEN one can draw conclusions based on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/arg...soning.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-02-2017, 04:52 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 08:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not sure where you get the idea that historical evidence is only archaeological evidence, and first hand accounts. In fact any data or information in which one can logically draw historical conclusions from, constitute as historical evidence, or evidence in general, by definition

As usual, you keep misreading what I said. I said historical and archeological evidence. Both are absent. There are no hard facts for the life of Jesus, in the same way as Homer's writings don't lead to hard facts on Achill or Hector.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
24-02-2017, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2017 06:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 04:52 AM)abaris Wrote:  As usual, you keep misreading what I said. I said historical and archeological evidence. Both are absent. There are no hard facts for the life of Jesus, in the same way as Homer's writings don't lead to hard facts on Achill or Hector.

No, what you said is: "Which means, there's no evidence, only hearsay and oral history."

Not there is "no hard facts", which again just seems to mean eye-witness accounts, and archaeological evidence, or perhaps you mean only archaeological evidence, for the "term hard facts"

But regardless, i'll be generous and let it be that you misspoke.

So do you agree that there is evidence that Jesus existed, but just not eye witness accounts of his life, or archaeological evidence?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(23-02-2017 09:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO
A deductive fallacy.
They are not evidence *because* conclusions can be based on them, IF they can be supported as evidence, THEN one can draw conclusions based on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/arg...soning.htm

I said logical conclusions, so don't change my words here.

If one can draw logical conclusions from any data/information, that data and information by lending itself to logical conclusions, are evidence by definition.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2017, 06:56 AM
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
You can call anything evidence to you. All that matters, objectively, is how convincing it is. Historically, it's about assessing probabilities.

I can write down that Santa Claus is real. I could then call that evidence. It's just that it's worthless evidence. And I wouldn't consider a bunch of anecdotes to be much better than that.

Let's be honest: Christians don't believe Jesus existed as a person because the evidence is strong. They believe before they even start, that super-Jesus exists, and as such Jesus also must have existed as a person. So there is no possibility of them ever caring if the evidence doesn't come up to scratch. They believe anyway.

If someone really thinks a few stories are enough evidence that a magical person existed, they better stay away from the fiction section in the library. Me then writing about how a group of people thought Harry Potter was real does not make their beliefs true, either. (Josephus)

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
24-02-2017, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2017 07:27 AM by abaris.)
RE: More evidence for Jesus than Caesar?
(24-02-2017 06:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, what you said is: "Which means, there's no evidence, only hearsay and oral history."

And every person with a shred of historical knowledge would have understood the meaning.

Look up the Meaning of Oral History at some point. I'm tired of explaining every historical term to you for you to hover in on some word you fail to grasp the meaning of.

And for fucks sake don't quote me out of context, since the above was said in connection to the Roman authors reporting on Christians, and the general rule of what history was at that time. This is what I said.

(23-02-2017 05:39 PM)abaris Wrote:  Again, this has to be checked against the standards of the time, which means that these authors didn't have first hand knowledge but only the testimony of christians. Which means, there's no evidence, only hearsay and oral history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: