Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 07:32 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 07:09 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 06:51 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

Can anyone list all the historians that other ancient authors used? Of course not, so why are you singling out this one thing about Christ?

You see, you keep raising the bar in this debate, and that makes your argument fallacious. When evidence is provided, you then ask for even greater evidence until the requests for evidence becomes completely unreasonable considering what we are dealing with here.

We need to allow reason to rule, and not logical fallacies in debates like this. We cannot look at the past through the lens of the present and make assertions on the past based upon what would be expected in the present, otherwise we become guilty of presentism, yet another logical fallacy.

My argument here is not about whether Jesus existed or not, for I don't really care if he did or not. No, my argument is against the debating tactics used to dispute evidence, and also against the personal agendas of some people who have a bias and thus a bone to pick with Christianity.

Like I said before, leave the emotion and disdain for Christianity and this Jesus guy out of it, and think things through with a reasonable and logical mindset.

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, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 07:44 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 07:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 07:09 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Can you list the Roman Historians? Surely if they wrote about Jesus as well we would have known about them too?

Can anyone list all the historians that other ancient authors used? Of course not, so why are you singling out this one thing about Christ?

You see, you keep raising the bar in this debate, and that makes your argument fallacious. When evidence is provided, you then ask for even greater evidence until the requests for evidence becomes completely unreasonable considering what we are dealing with here.

We need to allow reason to rule, and not logical fallacies in debates like this. We cannot look at the past through the lens of the present and make assertions on the past based upon what would be expected in the present, otherwise we become guilty of presentism, yet another logical fallacy.

My argument here is not about whether Jesus existed or not, for I don't really care if he did or not. No, my argument is against the debating tactics used to dispute evidence, and also against the personal agendas of some people who have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Like I said before, leave the emotion and disdain for Christianity and this Jesus guy out of it, and think things through with a reasonable and logical mindset.

I am asking if you could name the sources he used. I am not argueing, just fucking curious...

And by the way, you don't have to know all the historians to name them so that point is mute.

Cuz if I was a historian, who lived AFTER Jesus's time, and I wrote about all the things in the time, he had to use contemporary sources to even have a clue as to what actually happened.

Taticus is merely using a source, and the source he is using also needs to be reviewed.

Just like if Richard Dawkins made a paper and he used source, and the information in the source is crucial to his paper, people have to review that source to make sure Richard's paper stands up to scruinty.

If I use a BAD source, I am using bad information, and thus my information on that particular subject is wrong.

Taticus could have possibly gotten a bad source. In order to determine if the source he used is reliable we must find that particular source

I have a feeling that you are apealing to the authority of Taticus to get the right source from the Romans, even though he couldn't have possibly found a eyewitness account of it.

Just because Taticus reports with credibility on ONE issue, doesn't mean he reports with credibility on ALL issues in his books.

Oh, and by the way, we are not denying evidence just because we have a bone to pick with Jesus or his religion, we are denying evidence because we have yet to be convinced it is credible.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
01-11-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 07:34 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 07:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Can anyone list all the historians that other ancient authors used? Of course not, so why are you singling out this one thing about Christ?

You see, you keep raising the bar in this debate, and that makes your argument fallacious. When evidence is provided, you then ask for even greater evidence until the requests for evidence becomes completely unreasonable considering what we are dealing with here.

We need to allow reason to rule, and not logical fallacies in debates like this. We cannot look at the past through the lens of the present and make assertions on the past based upon what would be expected in the present, otherwise we become guilty of presentism, yet another logical fallacy.

My argument here is not about whether Jesus existed or not, for I don't really care if he did or not. No, my argument is against the debating tactics used to dispute evidence, and also against the personal agendas of some people who have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Like I said before, leave the emotion and disdain for Christianity and this Jesus guy out of it, and think things through with a reasonable and logical mindset.

I am asking if you could name the sources he used. I am not argueing, just fucking curious...

If you are asking for specific names of people, there are a few. But more than that, he states quite clearly that he used the general consensus of past historians to create his history book.

Check this out:

Quote:Fabius certainly inclines to the praise of Seneca, through whose friendship he rose to honour. Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.

He also states that many authors did not always record all the executions of people. Have a look:

Quote:Many authors, I am well aware, have passed over the perils and punishments of a host of persons, sickened by the multiplicity of them, or fearing that what they had themselves found wearisome and saddening would be equally fatiguing to their readers.

For myself, I have lighted on many facts worth knowing, though other writers have not recorded them.

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, 08:11 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 07:34 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I am asking if you could name the sources he used. I am not argueing, just fucking curious...

If you are asking for specific names of people, there are a few. But more than that, he states quite clearly that he used the general consensus of past historians to create his history book.

Check this out:

Quote:Fabius certainly inclines to the praise of Seneca, through whose friendship he rose to honour. Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.

He also states that many authors did not always record all the executions of people. Have a look:

Quote:Many authors, I am well aware, have passed over the perils and punishments of a host of persons, sickened by the multiplicity of them, or fearing that what they had themselves found wearisome and saddening would be equally fatiguing to their readers.

For myself, I have lighted on many facts worth knowing, though other writers have not recorded them.

There is something to Say about general consensus, Free.

Back in the day, the consensus believed many things that ended up false. But, that is really not an issue with your credibility. All I now ask is for a second source on Jesus's crucifixtion. After all, it just says Christ, and by then, the Gospels were made, and Paul converted many followers.... What's to say that some of the followers were the ones to give Taticus this information, thus tainting it.

This is what we are talking about, Taticus can not confirm the event firsthand, so he is merely repeating hearsay.

Hearsay is not false nor true, but it is information not directly gathered.

I know a guy who says he saw a deer in his yard if he then tells his brother, who then tells me, and I repeat it to somebody else, regardless if it is true or not, it is hearsay and it is not very reliable... Due to the fact that the person recording it can't confirm if it actually happened since it happened ages ago.

Instead of focusing on Taticus, why not try to find EARLIER sources for Jesus, it would better increase the credibility, though even then...

Taticus wasn't there when the cripucifixtion happened, so what he is writing is just what he heard or read, so it's hearsay, regardless of its truth.

[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, 08:13 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 07:34 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 07:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Can anyone list all the historians that other ancient authors used? Of course not, so why are you singling out this one thing about Christ?

You see, you keep raising the bar in this debate, and that makes your argument fallacious. When evidence is provided, you then ask for even greater evidence until the requests for evidence becomes completely unreasonable considering what we are dealing with here.

We need to allow reason to rule, and not logical fallacies in debates like this. We cannot look at the past through the lens of the present and make assertions on the past based upon what would be expected in the present, otherwise we become guilty of presentism, yet another logical fallacy.

My argument here is not about whether Jesus existed or not, for I don't really care if he did or not. No, my argument is against the debating tactics used to dispute evidence, and also against the personal agendas of some people who have a bone to pick with Christianity.

Like I said before, leave the emotion and disdain for Christianity and this Jesus guy out of it, and think things through with a reasonable and logical mindset.

I am asking if you could name the sources he used. I am not argueing, just fucking curious...

And by the way, you don't have to know all the historians to name them so that point is mute.

Cuz if I was a historian, who lived AFTER Jesus's time, and I wrote about all the things in the time, he had to use contemporary sources to even have a clue as to what actually happened.

Taticus is merely using a source, and the source he is using also needs to be reviewed.

Just like if Richard Dawkins made a paper and he used source, and the information in the source is crucial to his paper, people have to review that source to make sure Richard's paper stands up to scruinty.

If I use a BAD source, I am using bad information, and thus my information on that particular subject is wrong.

Taticus could have possibly gotten a bad source. In order to determine if the source he used is reliable we must find that particular source

I have a feeling that you are apealing to the authority of Taticus to get the right source from the Romans, even though he couldn't have possibly found a eyewitness account of it.

Just because Taticus reports with credibility on ONE issue, doesn't mean he reports with credibility on ALL issues in his books.

Oh, and by the way, we are not denying evidence just because we have a bone to pick with Jesus or his religion, we are denying evidence because we have yet to be convinced it is credible.

We cannot compare what we do in modern times (naming sources) to what was done 2000 years ago in an ancient culture. That's the fallacy of presentism, and if you studied history and how it is evaluated, you already know this.

To make an honest judgment of the past, as I'm sure you are aware, any great historian will first grasp the mindset of the ancient culture and immerse himself into that world. You will speak the language, know the idiom, lexicon, and come to know historical persons almost on a personal level.

The evidence provided by Tacitus as a whole is very credible. His technique for writing history is first rate, as it is very clear he used multiple sources and multiple attestations to deliver what is arguably one of the the greatest history books ever to cross my desk, or the desk of any historian.

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, 08:15 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 07:34 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I am asking if you could name the sources he used. I am not argueing, just fucking curious...

And by the way, you don't have to know all the historians to name them so that point is mute.

Cuz if I was a historian, who lived AFTER Jesus's time, and I wrote about all the things in the time, he had to use contemporary sources to even have a clue as to what actually happened.

Taticus is merely using a source, and the source he is using also needs to be reviewed.

Just like if Richard Dawkins made a paper and he used source, and the information in the source is crucial to his paper, people have to review that source to make sure Richard's paper stands up to scruinty.

If I use a BAD source, I am using bad information, and thus my information on that particular subject is wrong.

Taticus could have possibly gotten a bad source. In order to determine if the source he used is reliable we must find that particular source

I have a feeling that you are apealing to the authority of Taticus to get the right source from the Romans, even though he couldn't have possibly found a eyewitness account of it.

Just because Taticus reports with credibility on ONE issue, doesn't mean he reports with credibility on ALL issues in his books.

Oh, and by the way, we are not denying evidence just because we have a bone to pick with Jesus or his religion, we are denying evidence because we have yet to be convinced it is credible.

We cannot compare what we do in modern times (naming sources) to what was done 2000 years ago in an ancient culture. That's the fallacy of presentism, and if you studied history and how it is evaluated, you already know this.

To make an honest judgment of the past, as I'm sure you are aware, any great historian will first grasp the mindset of the ancient culture and immerse himself into that world. You will speak the language, know the idiom, lexicon, and come to know historical persons almost on a personal level.

The evidence provided by Tacitus as a whole is very credible. His technique for writing history is first rate, as it is very clear he used multiple sources and multiple attestations to deliver what is arguably one of the the greatest history books ever to cross my desk, or the desk of any historian.
Just becuase Taticus is reliable, doesn't mean the historians he sourced were.

I am not comparing it, but merely stating what hearsay was. Surely if a consensus was reached there had to be some other document older that Taticus that mentioned Jesus?
Excluding the bible, of course.

[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, 08:19 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  The evidence provided by Tacitus as a whole is very credible. His technique for writing history is first rate, as it is very clear he used multiple sources and multiple attestations to deliver what is arguably one of the the greatest history books ever to cross my desk, or the desk of any historian.

Then what are the other sources exactly ? How do you know in the letter he was "doing history" ? How do you know he was not just writing a letter ?
What are the standards that you used to decide Tacitus is reliable ?
You really have no way of knowing how he did this particular reference.

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
01-11-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:11 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:04 PM)Free Wrote:  If you are asking for specific names of people, there are a few. But more than that, he states quite clearly that he used the general consensus of past historians to create his history book.

Check this out:


He also states that many authors did not always record all the executions of people. Have a look:

After all, it just says Christ, and by then, the Gospels were made, and Paul converted many followers.... What's to say that some of the followers were the ones to give Taticus this information, thus tainting it.

I'm not saying that is not possible, but given what we know about the Roman culture and Tacitus, we can say it is not probable. Tacitus was a very highly respected writer and statesman of his time. He is writing about ROMAN history, not Christian or Jewish history. He is writing a historical account according to the history of Rome.

So we must ask ... why would he run to the Jews or the Christians for any history on Rome? The Romans were at war with the Jews, and the Christians were an off-shoot of the Jews.

Does it seem reasonable to you that a proud and well respected Roman historian and statesman would ever be caught dead lowering himself to qualifying the testimony of the Jews and Christians for it to be included in a Roman history book?

Silly, isn't it? You know it is, especially if you know your history about the Romans. Tacitus wouldn't be caught dead begging the Jews and Christians about THEIR history so he could include it is HIS Roman history book.

Who does that even today? Would you go to your enemy to write your nations history?



Quote:This is what we are talking about, Taticus can not confirm the event firsthand, so he is merely repeating hearsay.

Hearsay is not false nor true, but it is information not directly gathered.

Yet the evidence that Tacitus did not use hearsay is overwhelming. But first, we need to come to an understanding of what hearsay is, and what it is not.

According to many sources, hearsay is when one person repeats what was verbally said by another individual. It is also known as a rumor, or idle gossip.

But what hearsay is not is when we have multiple written attestations and accounts of of specific events and persons. When you have multiple written attestations and accounts, it does not even approach the "argument from authority" fallacy for the simple reason that the argument from authority fallacy relies on a singular authority, and not a consensus.

It has been demonstrated ad nasium that Tacitus relied on a consensus of Roman historians to create his history book, therefore, we have solid evidence against hearsay, and in fact, we even have Tacitus' own words regarding the use of hearsay in his works:

Quote:My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance.

The above speaks volumes about the credibility of Tacitus' work ethic.

Quote:Instead of focusing on Taticus, why not try to find EARLIER sources for Jesus, it would better increase the credibility, though even then...

Not many more exist that wouldn't be biased because most were written by zealous Christians. The only other one worth mentioning is the second mention of Jesus, who was called Christ, the brother of James, by Jospehus.

Quote:Taticus wasn't there when the cripucifixtion happened, so what he is writing is just what he heard or read, so it's hearsay, regardless of its truth.

Sorry, but hearsay does not qualify here.

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, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 09:07 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  The evidence provided by Tacitus as a whole is very credible. His technique for writing history is first rate, as it is very clear he used multiple sources and multiple attestations to deliver what is arguably one of the the greatest history books ever to cross my desk, or the desk of any historian.

Then what are the other sources exactly ? How do you know in the letter he was "doing history" ? How do you know he was not just writing a letter ?
What are the standards that you used to decide Tacitus is reliable ?
You really have no way of knowing how he did this particular reference.

Don't you think you are being quite unreasonable in your request for more evidence? We are not dealing with modern times here, but ancient history. You are thinking about how we do things today, and trying to force the modern mindset into an ancient culture. That does not work on its best day.

Most historians in antiquity didn't list any sources at all, but Tacitus was exceptional. He lists names of other writers, lists his sources as being those of Roman historians, and also names the Roman records and registries as sources.

He makes it quite clear several times he was writng a history book, and not some 400 page letter.

The standards I use are the first person statements of Tacitus himself, which have been listed numerous times in this discussion.

Anyways guys, my aim was not to get tied up with whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Tacitus was being factual. My aim is to demonstrate how NOT to use fallacious reasoning in debating Christians in regards to historicity.

This argument has gone on long enough, and I want to thank all of you for putting my debating skills to the test. It's been a while.

I'm off to find something else to argue about. If anyone responds to anything else I wrote here I can't guarantee I will respond because ... well ... it's kind of boring, ya know?

Anyways, thanks for the chat, and big kudos to all who participated.

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, 09:08 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 09:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 09:01 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then what are the other sources exactly ? How do you know in the letter he was "doing history" ? How do you know he was not just writing a letter ?
What are the standards that you used to decide Tacitus is reliable ?
You really have no way of knowing how he did this particular reference.

Don't you think you are being quite unreasonable in your request for more evidence? We are not dealing with modern times here, but ancient history. You are thinking about how we do things today, and trying to force the modern mindset into an ancient culture. That does not work on its best day.

Most historians in antiquity didn't list any sources at all, but Tacitus was exceptional. He lists names of other writers, lists his sources as being those of Roman historians, and also names the Roman records and registries as sources.

He makes it quite clear several times he was writing a history book, and not some 400 page letter.

The standards I use are the first person statements of Tacitus himself, which have been listed numerous times in this discussion.

Explain why he called him ChrEstus, if he used the correct term for "Christian". if he was so careful.
I am not being unreasonable here. we have no idea *who* the Chrestus was he was talking about, or if that person had any real relationship to Yeshua ben Joseph. YOU are using modern eyes and assume they were the same person.

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: