Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 09:10 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:11 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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.

He is not an eyewitness to the crucifixtion,so he had to get his information second hand. He is relying on what other historians have said about the issue because he wasn't there to confirm it. Relying on secondhand accounts is basically like hearsay.

It is hearsay until you can prove he was at the crucifixtion. We are not refuting his statement, but rather stating it as a fact that since he got his information SECONDHAND, and he wasn't there, he is relying on hearsay.

I believe you need some educating on what exactly hearsay is:
Quote:Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

So, did Taticus have direct experience of the Crucifixion? Nope! Is he relying on secondhand information, yup. Hearsay.

[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, 09:55 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 09:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  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?




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:


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


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.


Sorry, but hearsay does not qualify here.

He is not an eyewitness to the crucifixtion,so he had to get his information second hand. He is relying on what other historians have said about the issue because he wasn't there to confirm it. Relying on secondhand accounts is basically like hearsay.

It is hearsay until you can prove he was at the crucifixtion. We are not refuting his statement, but rather stating it as a fact that since he got his information SECONDHAND, and he wasn't there, he is relying on hearsay.

I believe you need some educating on what exactly hearsay is:
Quote:Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

So, did Taticus have direct experience of the Crucifixion? Nope! Is he relying on secondhand information, yup. Hearsay.

A2, you should read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

"Hearsay' is a legal term, it's not a standard in the field of History. There ARE levels and standards of evidence, in the methods used by historians. Your definition of "hearsay" doesn't really apply here. You making a "literal" distinction which does not really apply to historical methodology. Most historians accept that he was in fact referencing a man he thought was the preacher who started the cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
It in no way confirms anything about the claims made about him.

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, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 10:04 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 09:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 09:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  He is not an eyewitness to the crucifixtion,so he had to get his information second hand. He is relying on what other historians have said about the issue because he wasn't there to confirm it. Relying on secondhand accounts is basically like hearsay.

It is hearsay until you can prove he was at the crucifixtion. We are not refuting his statement, but rather stating it as a fact that since he got his information SECONDHAND, and he wasn't there, he is relying on hearsay.

I believe you need some educating on what exactly hearsay is:

So, did Taticus have direct experience of the Crucifixion? Nope! Is he relying on secondhand information, yup. Hearsay.

A2, you should read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

"Hearsay' is a legal term, it's not a standard in the field of History. There ARE levels and standards of evidence, in the methods used by historians. Your definition of "hearsay" doesn't really apply here. You making a "literal" distinction which does not really apply to historical methodology. Most historians accept that he was in fact referencing a man he thought was the preacher who started the cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
It in no way confirms anything about the claims made about him.

I was saying hearsay, but not meaning the legal term. I am familar with the historical method. I am not tarnishing Taticus or any historian for relying on second hand accounts, but I am using hearsay to mean that he has not directly expierenced the event, and is using secondhand information, provided from other people(reliable or not). I just want Free to understand what I mean by hearsay, and the legal term describes it perfectly.

I mean it in a historical context that Taticus wasn't there, and is using secondhand information. Which is not as reliable as firsthand information, or contemporary sources for that matter.

I get that most historians recognize its authenticity, but that doesn't negate what I was talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Taticus would be way more reliable if he WAS an eyewitness?

It's not that I was using the legal term to go against Taticus, but explaining what I meant by hearsay and why contemporary sources, or eyewitness accounts that CAN be verified is better evidence then secondhand information from a consensus of historians that most likely got their information second hand as well.

[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, 10:07 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 09:59 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 09:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A2, you should read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

"Hearsay' is a legal term, it's not a standard in the field of History. There ARE levels and standards of evidence, in the methods used by historians. Your definition of "hearsay" doesn't really apply here. You making a "literal" distinction which does not really apply to historical methodology. Most historians accept that he was in fact referencing a man he thought was the preacher who started the cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
It in no way confirms anything about the claims made about him.

I was saying hearsay, but not meaning the legal term. I am familar with the historical method. I am not tarnishing Taticus or any historian for relying on second hand accounts, but I am using hearsay to mean that he has not directly expierenced the event, and is using secondhand information, provided from other people(reliable or not). I just want Free to understand what I mean by hearsay, and the legal term describes it perfectly.

I mean it in a historical context that Taticus wasn't there, and is using secondhand information. Which is not as reliable as firsthand information, or contemporary sources for that matter.

I get that most historians recognize its authenticity, but that doesn't negate what I was talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Taticus would be way more reliable if he WAS an eyewitness?

It's not that I was using the legal term to go against Taticus, but explaining what I meant by hearsay and why contemporary sources, or eyewitness accounts that CAN be verified is better evidence then secondhand information from a consensus of historians that most likely got their information second hand as well.

Yes, but almost nothing in history we know about is because of an author being an "eyewitness". It's an impossible standard.

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, 10:13 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 10:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 09:59 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I was saying hearsay, but not meaning the legal term. I am familar with the historical method. I am not tarnishing Taticus or any historian for relying on second hand accounts, but I am using hearsay to mean that he has not directly expierenced the event, and is using secondhand information, provided from other people(reliable or not). I just want Free to understand what I mean by hearsay, and the legal term describes it perfectly.

I mean it in a historical context that Taticus wasn't there, and is using secondhand information. Which is not as reliable as firsthand information, or contemporary sources for that matter.

I get that most historians recognize its authenticity, but that doesn't negate what I was talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Taticus would be way more reliable if he WAS an eyewitness?

It's not that I was using the legal term to go against Taticus, but explaining what I meant by hearsay and why contemporary sources, or eyewitness accounts that CAN be verified is better evidence then secondhand information from a consensus of historians that most likely got their information second hand as well.

Yes, but almost nothing in history we know about is because of an author being an "eyewitness". It's an impossible standard.

I know, which is why Historians gather evidence, whether literary or others to suggest that the author is being truthful. Fitting the piece of work with others that wrote about the same event or same time in the same place is just one of the ways.

I am not arguing that History should only be with first hand knowledge, but that secondhand knowledge does not compare in credibility to firsthand knowledge( unless the firsthand knowledge is, within reason, proved to be dubious.)

And In order to fully get a hold of this, I asked Free what/who exactly is Taticus citing.

I am not doubting Taticus, but I am explaining why some might not trust a secondhand source without knowing(and evaluating) what he is basing his text off of.

[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, 10:22 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 10:13 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 10:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes, but almost nothing in history we know about is because of an author being an "eyewitness". It's an impossible standard.

I know, which is why Historians gather evidence, whether literary or others to suggest that the author is being truthful. Fitting the piece of work with others that wrote about the same event or same time in the same place is just one of the ways.

I am not arguing that History should only be with first hand knowledge, but that secondhand knowledge does not compare in credibility to firsthand knowledge( unless the firsthand knowledge is, within reason, proved to be dubious.)

And In order to fully get a hold of this, I asked Free what/who exactly is Taticus citing.

I am not doubting Taticus, but I am explaining why some might not trust a secondhand source without knowing(and evaluating) what he is basing his text off of.

So, you would be left with looking at his other work. If he was generally reliable in other things, (which he is thought to be), then you would look at this statement in that context, since you're never going to get an answer to that question. But not getting it, is irrelevant. There are mountains of evidence against the "faith" position of early Christians. We can't be "100%" certain about this reference, but it rests "in the balance". The "balance" doesn't HAVE to be NO evidence on one side or the other. The "preponderance" seems to be that he was generally reliable. It's a waste of time. "Christianity"'s case is actually weakened MORE if there really WAS a Jeebus.

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, 10:24 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 10:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 10:13 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I know, which is why Historians gather evidence, whether literary or others to suggest that the author is being truthful. Fitting the piece of work with others that wrote about the same event or same time in the same place is just one of the ways.

I am not arguing that History should only be with first hand knowledge, but that secondhand knowledge does not compare in credibility to firsthand knowledge( unless the firsthand knowledge is, within reason, proved to be dubious.)

And In order to fully get a hold of this, I asked Free what/who exactly is Taticus citing.

I am not doubting Taticus, but I am explaining why some might not trust a secondhand source without knowing(and evaluating) what he is basing his text off of.

So, you would be left with looking at his other work. If he was generally reliable in other things, (which he is thought to be), then you would look at this statement in that context, since you're never going to get an answer to that question. But not getting it, is irrelevant. There are mountains of evidence against the "faith" position of early Christians. We can't be "100%" certain about this reference, but it rests "in the balance". The "balance" doesn't HAVE to be NO evidence on one side or the other. The "preponderance" seems to be that he was generally reliable. It's a waste of time. "Christianity"'s case is actually weakened MORE if there really WAS a Jeebus.
Bucky, I am a believer in the historical Jesus. I just was trying to explain why some people might not be convinced by Taticus alone.

Taticus actually did it for me. And I explained why just because there was a Jesus, doesn't mean he was THE Jesus:Son of God.

You get what I mean?

[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, 11:02 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 10:24 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 10:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So, you would be left with looking at his other work. If he was generally reliable in other things, (which he is thought to be), then you would look at this statement in that context, since you're never going to get an answer to that question. But not getting it, is irrelevant. There are mountains of evidence against the "faith" position of early Christians. We can't be "100%" certain about this reference, but it rests "in the balance". The "balance" doesn't HAVE to be NO evidence on one side or the other. The "preponderance" seems to be that he was generally reliable. It's a waste of time. "Christianity"'s case is actually weakened MORE if there really WAS a Jeebus.
Bucky, I am a believer in the historical Jesus. I just was trying to explain why some people might not be convinced by Taticus alone.

Taticus actually did it for me. And I explained why just because there was a Jesus, doesn't mean he was THE Jesus:Son of God.

You get what I mean?

Yup. I actually said the same thing. There were lots of Jesuses. There are good reasons to think that the "apocalyptic-preacher-walks-around-in-Galilee-Jesus" might NOT be the Jesus who Tacitus heard about and was mentioned by other historians, who was crucified. If there really WAS a trial, THAT guy was an important person. The rabble-rouser-makes-a-scene-in-the-temple-Jesus was a common crook, who did not merit a trial, or even a glance by an occupying Roman aristocrat. Which is why I think Mark's book is interesting. If ONE of the Jesuses was a revolutionary threat to Rome, THAT guy would be tried, and interact with the authorities. The nice-Jesus would not be talked about, by the Roman historians. The CULT could have arisen by conflating the two "remembered" Jesuses as 1 guy, when in fact, maybe he was two. We don't know.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2012, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2012 10:12 AM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 09:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  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?




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:


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


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.


Sorry, but hearsay does not qualify here.

He is not an eyewitness to the crucifixtion,so he had to get his information second hand. He is relying on what other historians have said about the issue because he wasn't there to confirm it. Relying on secondhand accounts is basically like hearsay.

It is hearsay until you can prove he was at the crucifixtion. We are not refuting his statement, but rather stating it as a fact that since he got his information SECONDHAND, and he wasn't there, he is relying on hearsay.

I believe you need some educating on what exactly hearsay is:
Quote:Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

So, did Taticus have direct experience of the Crucifixion? Nope! Is he relying on secondhand information, yup. Hearsay.


Hey now, just because he didn't have direct experience about the crucifixion does not, in any way whatsoever, qualify his writing about the crucifixion as being mere hearsay. That is not the definition of hearsay. In fact, the quote of your definition of hearsay is exactly correct, but are you understanding that definition?

Did you see that even your definition describes hearsay as being "information gathered by one person from another person?" Notice the person is not plural?

It has been demonstrated to you that Tacitus used multiple attestations from numerous Roman historians (many of whom he names), Roman Records, Roman Registries, and other Roman authors to complete his works. He has followed the Historical Method to an excellent degree, considering he was an ancient historian.

The method that Tacitus used was designed, as he said, "to put down hearsay in favor of genuine history." Hearsay is generally regarded to be an "utterance," as opposed to written materials. Even the US government makes exceptions to ancient documents to exclude them as being classified as mere hearsay:

Quote:Other exceptions, declarant's availability immaterial: In the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, separate exceptions are made for public records, family records, and records in ancient documents of established authenticity. When regular or public records are kept, the absence of such records may also be used as admissible hearsay evidence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_...States_law


Hearsay is not what people think it is. It is generally considered to be an utterance, not multiple written historical documents. Also, when evaluating history, we do not use the same standards that qualify as hearsay that a criminal court would use. After all, it is history, and we use the Historical Method, not criminal legal procedures.

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
02-11-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(02-11-2012 07:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 09:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  He is not an eyewitness to the crucifixtion,so he had to get his information second hand. He is relying on what other historians have said about the issue because he wasn't there to confirm it. Relying on secondhand accounts is basically like hearsay.

It is hearsay until you can prove he was at the crucifixtion. We are not refuting his statement, but rather stating it as a fact that since he got his information SECONDHAND, and he wasn't there, he is relying on hearsay.

I believe you need some educating on what exactly hearsay is:

So, did Taticus have direct experience of the Crucifixion? Nope! Is he relying on secondhand information, yup. Hearsay.


Hey now, just because he didn't have direct experience about the crucifixion does not, in any way whatsoever, qualify his writing about the crucifixion as being mere hearsay. That is not the definition of hearsay. In fact, the quote of your definition of hearsay is exactly correct, but are you understanding that definition?

Did you see that even your definition describes hearsay as being "information gathered by one person from another person?" Notice the person is not plural?

It has been demonstrated to you that Tacitus used multiple attestations from numerous Roman historians (many of whom he names), Roman Records, Roman Registries, and other Roman authors to complete his works. He has followed the Historical Method to an excellent degree, considering he was an ancient historian.

The method that Tacitus used was designed, as he said, "to put down hearsay in favor of genuine history." Hearsay is generally regarded to be an "utterance," as opposed to written materials. Even the US government makes exceptions to ancient documents to exclude them as being classified as mere hearsay:

Quote:Other exceptions, declarant's availability immaterial: In the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, separate exceptions are made for public records, family records, and records in ancient documents of established authenticity. When regular or public records are kept, the absence of such records may also be used as admissible hearsay evidence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_...States_law


Hearsay is not what people think it is. It is generally considered to be an utterance, not multiple written historical documents. Also, when evaluating history, we do not use the same standards that qualify as hearsay that a criminal court would use. After all, it is history, and we use the Historical Method, not criminal legal procedures.
And I will repeat what I just said to Bucky. I was using the Word "Hearsay" as a term for second hand information, or information of an experience that is not direct. In other words, secondhand information. I was arguing that people might not believe Taticus is credible on this issue because we have yet to see the sources that Taticus claims he is citing from.

The legal term perfectly defines what I was saying, so I used to to fit into the meaning I was trying to portray, which means that he hasn't experienced the Crucifixion firsthand, and thus is relying on somebody elses word, and or information. This, in some people's eyes makes Taticus's excerpt on Jesus not as Credible as a first hand "eyewitness" account. While Taticus might be credible in most respects, he only is that way becasue we have corraborating evidence to suggest that he actually is telling the truth. You have yet to supply me a document that confirms the Crucifixion of Christ. Until ther is corraborating, contemporary evidence, or We find out who/What exactly Taticus was sourcing and EVALUATE that evidence, some people are not going to belive in the Historical Yeshua.

this was not me arguing AGAINST the Historical Jesus, but merely asking WHO he was sourcing, and detailing why other people might doubt Taticus's writing on this issue.

Basically, provide corroborating evidence that the Crucifixion took place... and then find out Who/What Taticus was sourcing ( and prove that that is credible) or else you will ALWAYS have naysayers on this issue.

being alive at the time is important because firsthand information is (almost) always better than secondhand information, of which Taticus is using.

[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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: