Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 05:09 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 04:39 PM)Free Wrote:  So moving the goal posts now? You didn't specify anything about Christ. You specifically targeted his credibility by stating his "writings" didn't use any referrence materials.

Regardless, any concerns that Tacitus did not use Roman records, other historians, or other available records is now put to rest. This is evidence that he did use records to research for his history book. If you are going to pinpoint the area about Christ, then we can do that to any ancient historian and doubt anything they wrote.

Aside from that, Tacitus tells us the following at the beginning of his history about the fires of Rome- which includes the part about Christ:


So there you can see that Tacitus used the works of other historians when he wrote his history of the fires of Rome, which includes the part about Christ.

So what are we to think from that? He didn't use referrence materials and only used hearsay?

Not a reasonable position considering the evidence.

Note the thread title, "Proof of Jesus". Of course requiring his sources for knowledge of Christ is reasonable. Those are the only goal posts that matter.

Re-read my previous post. I edited it and added more info.

And why is it any more reasonable for him to list a specific resource about Christ than it is for him to list a source for anything else? He doesn't list a source for every thing and everyone, so should we then doubt everything?

Is that actually reasonable?

Okay, so we don't like Christ or Christianity, but by no means should our disdain for both render us unreasonable. We are logical and reasonable people, and should never allow our dislike for something force us to be unreasonable. That's not what atheism represents.

I like to think we represent reason and intelligence, as opposed to beliefs and and a lack of reason.

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
01-11-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  Note the thread title, "Proof of Jesus". Of course requiring his sources for knowledge of Christ is reasonable. Those are the only goal posts that matter.

Re-read my previous post. I edited it and added more info.

And why is it any more reasonable for him to list a specific resource about Christ than it is for him to list a source for anything else? He doesn't list a source for every thing and everyone, so should we then doubt everything?

Is that actually reasonable?

We should always doubt that for which there is insufficient evidence.

Just because Tacitus, or anyone, is credible on one thing doesn't make him credible on everything. This is skepticism appropriately applied.

Otherwise it is merely an argument from authority.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-11-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Re-read my previous post. I edited it and added more info.

And why is it any more reasonable for him to list a specific resource about Christ than it is for him to list a source for anything else? He doesn't list a source for every thing and everyone, so should we then doubt everything?

Is that actually reasonable?

We should always doubt that for which there is insufficient evidence.

Just because Tacitus, or anyone, is credible on one thing doesn't make him credible on everything. This is skepticism appropriately applied.

Otherwise it is merely an argument from authority.

No one says he needs to be credible on everything. No one says he needs to be 100% accurate either. But like any ancient historical account, no one says that we should doubt specific things just because they didn't list their sources.

But when we look at Tacitus, we can actually see him listing his sources numerous times in his work. This was very uncommon among ancient historians, and that is why Tacitus is so credible, and also why he is the definitive resource for historians researching about ancient Rome.

He doesn't need to be perfect, no one is. But there is simply no good reason to doubt that his history about Pilate crucifying Christ isn't factual.

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
01-11-2012, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 05:31 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  No one says he needs to be credible on everything. No one says he needs to be 100% accurate either. But like any ancient historical account, no one says that we should doubt specific things just because they didn't list their sources.

But when we look at Tacitus, we can actually see him listing his sources numerous times in his work. This was very uncommon among ancient historians, and that is why Tacitus is so credible, and also why he is the definitive resource for historians researching about ancient Rome.
The credibility of his writings on any other topic than Jesus is irrelevant when our goal is to find out whether or not his writings about said topic have any merit.

(01-11-2012 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  He doesn't need to be perfect, no one is. But there is simply no good reason to doubt that his history about Pilate crucifying Christ isn't factual.
Yes, there actually is. Consider that he didn't live within Jesus lifetime, for one.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 05:44 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  We should always doubt that for which there is insufficient evidence.

Just because Tacitus, or anyone, is credible on one thing doesn't make him credible on everything. This is skepticism appropriately applied.

Otherwise it is merely an argument from authority.

No one says he needs to be credible on everything. No one says he needs to be 100% accurate either. But like any ancient historical account, no one says that we should doubt specific things just because they didn't list their sources.

But when we look at Tacitus, we can actually see him listing his sources numerous times in his work. This was very uncommon among ancient historians, and that is why Tacitus is so credible, and also why he is the definitive resource for historians researching about ancient Rome.

He doesn't need to be perfect, no one is. But there is simply no good reason to doubt that his history about Pilate crucifying Christ isn't factual.

Of course there is reason to doubt his account - he cites no credible sources; it is hearsay.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 05:45 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:26 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  No one says he needs to be credible on everything. No one says he needs to be 100% accurate either. But like any ancient historical account, no one says that we should doubt specific things just because they didn't list their sources.

But when we look at Tacitus, we can actually see him listing his sources numerous times in his work. This was very uncommon among ancient historians, and that is why Tacitus is so credible, and also why he is the definitive resource for historians researching about ancient Rome.
The credibility of his writings on any other topic than Jesus is irrelevant when our goal is to find out whether or not his writings about said topic have any merit.

I disagree. Since the objective of doubt is to question his credibility, we must consider the works of Tacitus as a whole. We do not take one single paragraph and question its merit when we have already demonstrated excellent credibility on his history book as a whole.

Why should we single out the part about Christ and differentiate that from the rest of his works?

Quote:
(01-11-2012 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  He doesn't need to be perfect, no one is. But there is simply no good reason to doubt that his history about Pilate crucifying Christ isn't factual.
Yes, there actually is. Consider that he didn't live within Jesus lifetime, for one.

So why is that important? We see the works of dozens historians who didn't live during the time of the history they wrote about, so should we then throw all of history in doubt?

Not acceptable. Not reasonable. Not logical, and not a tenable argument.

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
01-11-2012, 05:55 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:45 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:26 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The credibility of his writings on any other topic than Jesus is irrelevant when our goal is to find out whether or not his writings about said topic have any merit.

I disagree. Since the objective of doubt is to question his credibility, we must consider the works of Tacitus as a whole. We do not take one single paragraph and question its merit when we have already demonstrated excellent credibility on his history book as a whole.

Why should we single out the part about Christ and differentiate that from the rest of his works?

Quote:Yes, there actually is. Consider that he didn't live within Jesus lifetime, for one.

So why is that important? We see the works of dozens historians who didn't live during the time of the history they wrote about, so should we then throw all of history in doubt?

Not acceptable. Not reasonable. Not logical, and not a tenable argument.

Evidence. Historians must have evidence. You are ignoring the necessity of evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 06:51 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I disagree. Since the objective of doubt is to question his credibility, we must consider the works of Tacitus as a whole. We do not take one single paragraph and question its merit when we have already demonstrated excellent credibility on his history book as a whole.

Why should we single out the part about Christ and differentiate that from the rest of his works?


So why is that important? We see the works of dozens historians who didn't live during the time of the history they wrote about, so should we then throw all of history in doubt?

Not acceptable. Not reasonable. Not logical, and not a tenable argument.

Evidence. Historians must have evidence. You are ignoring the necessity of evidence.

I'm not ignoring anything at all. The evidence that Tacitus used Roman records, other historians, and sourced other authors is clearly evident in his writings as a whole. Also, I pointed out quite clearly that Tacitus stated that he sourced other historical authors regarding his history on the fires of Rome, which includes the section on the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate.

Now that is evidence. It is indeed evidence that should not be disputed just because he talks about Christ being executed. People keep asking for Tacitus' source on the crucifixion of Christ and there he is, right at the beginning of that section, telling us he sourced other Roman historians.

We don't see anyone disputing much about anything else he wrote about, so why are we singling out this one section when it has already been demonstrated that he used source materials to write about it?

The problem is obvious; it deals with someone named Christ who the Christians were named after and some atheists simply don't like it. If you want to say "it's not evidence" then go ahead, but all your assertions will never erase what has been written and what is self evident as it stands on its own.

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
01-11-2012, 07:09 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 06:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence. Historians must have evidence. You are ignoring the necessity of evidence.

I'm not ignoring anything at all. The evidence that Tacitus used Roman records, other historians, and sourced other authors is clearly evident in his writings as a whole. Also, I pointed out quite clearly that Tacitus stated that he sourced other historical authors regarding his history on the fires of Rome, which includes the section on the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate.

Now that is evidence. It is indeed evidence that should not be disputed just because he talks about Christ being executed. People keep asking for Tacitus' source on the crucifixion of Christ and there he is, right at the beginning of that section, telling us he sourced other Roman historians.

We don't see anyone disputing much about anything else he wrote about, so why are we singling out this one section when it has already been demonstrated that he used source materials to write about it?

The problem is obvious; it deals with someone named Christ who the Christians were named after and some atheists simply don't like it. If you want to say "it's not evidence" then go ahead, but all your assertions will never erase what has been written and what is self evident as it stands on its own.

Can you list the Roman Historians? Surely if they wrote about Jesus as well we would have known about them too?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 06:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence. Historians must have evidence. You are ignoring the necessity of evidence.

I'm not ignoring anything at all. The evidence that Tacitus used Roman records, other historians, and sourced other authors is clearly evident in his writings as a whole. Also, I pointed out quite clearly that Tacitus stated that he sourced other historical authors regarding his history on the fires of Rome, which includes the section on the crucifixion of Christ by Pontius Pilate.

Now that is evidence. It is indeed evidence that should not be disputed just because he talks about Christ being executed. People keep asking for Tacitus' source on the crucifixion of Christ and there he is, right at the beginning of that section, telling us he sourced other Roman historians.

We don't see anyone disputing much about anything else he wrote about, so why are we singling out this one section when it has already been demonstrated that he used source materials to write about it?

The problem is obvious; it deals with someone named Christ who the Christians were named after and some atheists simply don't like it. If you want to say "it's not evidence" then go ahead, but all your assertions will never erase what has been written and what is self evident as it stands on its own.

The fallacy is that he had no way of knowing that the "Christ" he *heard* about was actually Yeshua ben Josef., that the Christians came to worship. He had NO way of knowing which Jesus of the many they were actually talking about. There were many. He also called him "ChEstus", even while using the correct word" Christians" for the cult. So there is just NO way of knowing :

a. who he was talking about
b. whether the Jesus he heard about was the SAME Jesus the Christians thought was their preacher.

There were no Roman "records" about the actual trial. Only that Pilate executed "a" Jesus. There are good reasons to think it was not the same Jesus.
Yeshua was a nobody. He did not merit a trial. He would have been executed by "standing order". The gospel accounts of the trial were invented. They conflict on the day, and the proceedings. There was no reason to try a common trouble maker, or waste the time of Roman aristocrats with a peasant from the Galilee.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: