Mr_C
Moderator
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6343
Local time: 4:54 AM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| romans120 wrote: | | Quote: | Romans wrote
Which means when the text was copied all four gospels were available for the transcriber to copy into one document. It would have taken time for the circulation of these manuscripts to have been collected let alone copied. |
| Quote: |
Mr._C wrote
This is the real meat of your argument - "It would have taken time". How much time? A year? Six months? Two hundred years? A day? A week? It would be fallacious of you to attempt to shoe-horn in a historical date based on speculation alone.
The gospels are dated mid-late first century. The codex in question would be dated right at the year 200 - which agrees with your statement that "it would have taken time". Unfortunately for your case, this is not evidence for "The New Testament manuscripts show evidence that the original manuscripts were in wide circulation during the life time of those in the area where Jesus was claimed to have lived and people would have known whether or not He existed.". |
The point of my argument is the time for circulation. Remember the time span were dealing with Jesus death would have been slightly before mid 1st century and the Gospels are dated mid to late 1st century. |
Let's be specific: The earliest gospel (Mark) was written at least 30 years after the supposed death of Jesus.
Also, we have no idea how long it took for this myth to form and become organized. If Jesus is a legend, the supposed year of Christ's death can not be considered a starting point for this myth to form. The myth could have been created much earlier or much later than 33 CE. Although 30+ years is more than enough time for a legend to form - See Mithraism, Elvis, gnosticism, and even modern-day examples such as Bloody Mary:
About 100 years ago or so there was a woman named Mary. One day she had a terrible accident and her face was scratched so badly that she bled to death. But her spirit could not rest. Bloody Mary roams the world as an evil ghost. If you stand in front of a mirror in the dark and say her name three times, you will see her horribly mangled face appear. If you don't turn on the light and run away as fast as you can she will try to scratch your face off.
The story of the ghost who appears in a mirror when summoned has been told many times in countless variations. Children, following the directions provided in the version they heard, have been trying to contact Bloody Mary for at least 30 years now, perhaps for much longer than that. There's something about the story that makes it almost a tradition at slumber parties and summer camp, or basically anywhere a group of youngsters get together away from the watchful eyes of adults.
source (emphasis mine)
"Bloody Mary" is an interesting example because it's a well-known myth that originated amongst mostly children, at a time before the internet.
This is a wonderful evidence of how myths could easily grow in ancient times, by word of mouth, especially within the context of religion. Who is Bloody Mary? A legend, of course!
| Quote: |
When we talk about circulation we are talking about demand. Demand equals organization. Organization in this time period takes time. not centuries but certainly decades. |
Prove this. Provide sources, please.
| Quote: |
Take the gnostics for example. They were educated, prolific writers and had a good reputation within the intellectual elite. It is obvious John is responding to Gnostic ideas and a community of people who perpetuate those ideas late in the 1st century, but gnosticism was not organized until the 3rd century. |
That's incorrect. Marcion (110-160 CE), for example, "was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a 'canon' of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a 'mutilated' Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively)." (source
Gnosticism was easily as well-organized as Christianity and Mithraism, but both were booted when Christianity became the official state religion in the year 377. Mithraism originated 400 years before your Jesus legend, by the way.
| Quote: |
Look at a map you will see that christianity spread from jerusalem to rome before Paul ever wrote his first book which depends heavily upon the Gospels. |
That would be difficult since the gospels were written after Paul died.
Paul didn't rely on the gospels, the gospels relied on Paul. Jesus wasn't a real human being to Paul, who never claimed to have met Jesus in the first place!
In Paul's writings, "there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination." citation
| Quote: |
The example Mr._C used for a religeon that rapidly organized is actually a very good illustration my my point. Mithraism did rapidly expand but not until it became established in the Danube area in mid 2nd century where it caught within the ranks of the Roman army. even though it originated in Asaia Minor in the late 1st century |
Wrong. It originated in ancient Persia 400 years BCE, but was adopted by the Roman army in the 1st century. Its history is lost to antiquity, but you're only referencing its last few hundred years to attempt to prove an elusive point. Again, Christianity "borrowed" many things from Mithraism, such as outlined below:
Iconographical similarities with Christianity
Franz Cumont was the first scholar to suggest that Christianity had borrowed iconographic themes from Mithraism, pointing out that Mithraic images of the Heavens, the Earth, the Ocean, the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, signs of the Zodiac, the Winds, the Seasons, and the Elements are found on Christian sarcophagi, mosaics, and miniatures from the third to the fifth centuries. According to Cumont the Church was opposed to the pagan practice of worshipping the cosmic cycle, but these images were nevertheless incorporated into Christian artworks, in which "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture". Early Christian depictions of Moses striking Mount Horeb (Sinai) with his staff to release drinking water were, according to Cumont, inspired by an earlier Mithraic reference to Mithras shooting arrows at rocks causing fountains to spring up.[21]
M. J. Vermaseren claimed that the scene of Mithras ascending into the heavens was similarly incorporated into Christian art: after Mithras had accomplished a series of miraculous deeds, he ascended into the heavens in a chariot, which in various depictions is drawn by horses being controlled by by Helios-Sol, the pagan sun god. In other depictions a chariot of fire belonging to Helios is led into the water, surrounded by the god Oceanus and sea nymphs. Vermaseren argues that Christian portrayals on sarcophagi of the soul’s ascension into heaven, though ostensibly referencing the biblical scene of Elijah being led into heaven by fiery chariots and horses, were in fact inspired by representations of Mithras' ascent into the heavens in Helios’ chariot. The sun god, Vermaseren claims, provided inspiration for the flames on Elijah’s chariot and the Jordan River is personified by a figure resembling the god Oceanus. [22] Some scholars have also used similar language to describe the circumstances of Mithras' and Jesus' birth: Joseph Campbell described it as a virgin birth,[23] and Martin A. Larson noted that Mithras was said to have been born on December 25th, or winter solstice.[24]
A. Deman suggests that rather than attempting to find individual references from Mithraic art in Christian iconography, as Cumont does with the sun and moon, for instance, it is better to look for larger patterns of comparison: "with this method, pure coincidences can no longer be used and so the recognition of Mithras as the privileged pagan inspirer of medieval Christian iconography is forced upon us." For example Deman compares what he calls the "creative sacrifice" of Mithras with the creative sacrifice of Christ. In both iconographic scenes the vernal sacrifice is central to the image, with sun and the moon symmetrically arranged above. Beneath the sacrifice two other figures are symmetrically arranged. In mithraic scenes these are Cautes and Cautopates, and in the Christian scenes, which date from the 4th century onwards, the figures are typically Mary and John. In other Christian instances however, these two attendants are other figures, and carry a raised and lowered object reminiscent of the raised and lowered torches of Cautes and Cautopates. Such figures may be two Roman soldiers armed with lances, or Longinus holding a spear and Stephaton offering Jesus vinegar from a sponge. In some instances the clothes of these figures resemble those of Cautes and Cautopates in the earlier Mithraic depictions. Derman also compares the twelve apostles shown in Christian crucifixion scenes with the twelve signs of the zodiac common in Mithraic scenes, as well as identifying a cross-legged posture commonly found in figures in both sets of iconography.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Romans wrote
Perhaps the most important aspect of these transcripts is that they contain chapter and text divisions. The originals certainly did not have this feature and would have taken a considerable amount of time to develop. So the original manuscripts of the gospels would have originated significantly before these were copied. |
| Quote: | Mr._C wrote
Again we find Romans speculating on time. This time - the amount of time it would take to re-write something in an organized manner.
I could personally re-write the 4 canonical gospels (given the time and inclination) with new chapters and verses in less than a month. Is that what we mean by "a considerable amount of time"?
Of course we don't have the originals to substantiate the former claim, "The originals certainly did not have this feature...". |
The inclusion of chapter and verse divisions would have been considered new technology.
Most manuscripts from that same time period and certainly before that time period the would have been no spaces between words let alone chapter verse or even paragragh divisions. There wasn't even any puncuation. It was possible to read only because greek has limited and recognizable word endings that determine the parsing of the word. (look up codex siniaticus or vaticanus for examples if you wish) So high demand breeds necessity for technological inovation which is evidence of widespread unfied organization at the end of the 1st century |
No, it's evidence that somebody added chapter and verse references to religious texts in the year 200.
| Quote: | Romans wrote
If the originals were being circulated in the relatively limited region of Judea and Asia and the their credibility depended upon a legendary figure it would have been very easy for their enemies to discredit them and the very unlikely that they would have been able to maintain a following. |
Their credibility did not depend on a legendary figure, it depended on the social structures inherent in a mystery religion - which is why other cults such a Mithraism and Gnosticism co-existed with Christianity.
| Romans120 wrote: |
| Quote: | Mr._C
During the first century, Mithraism was spreading just as fast as another mystery cult - Christianity.
From here (Note: This is a great history of religion site for those that are interested):
The spread of both Mithraism and Christianity can be seen at the two extremes of the empire. Doura-Europos, a frontier post on the Euphrates abandoned in about AD 257, has buildings associated with both religions.
Thousands of miles away, in Britain, there is a temple of Mithras in London in the early 4th century. Also in England, and from the same century, a very early depiction of Jesus Christ (young, clean-shaven, with curly fair hair) survives in a mosaic pavement at Hinton St Mary.
There were, of course, other religions at the time, which I'm sure Romans would agree are all false religions, based on legend. Their mere existence, much less their popularity, counters his above claim quicker than I can type  |
The only point I am making is that the rapidity by which christianity spread is evidence for early dating of the Gospels. The wide spread if mithraism is because the roman army took it wherever they went and went everywhere. so I think we are comparing apples to oranges. |
But we already have established dates for the gospels:
* Mark: c. 68–73,[5] c 65-70[1]
* Matthew: c. 70–100.[5] c 80-85.[1] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[5], c 80-85[1]
* John: c 90-100,[1] c. 90–110,[6] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
(wiki)
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
B. Another and probably the most important manuscripts are known as the Chester Beaty manuscripts designated p45 and p 46. p 46 is significant because it contains 11 new testament books other than the Gospels. It is dated 200 A.D. So not only were the Gospels in wide circulation by this time but so was a majority of the New Testament. Putting the originals well within the life time of those who could verify and write whether Jesus existed or not. Remember these manuscripts were not isolated they went from church to church and town to town in the same areas where Jesus would have lived.
(Technical information taken from The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman)
Mr._C wrote
I think I've already countered this point, so I'll move on. |
No I don't think so. as I mentioned above christianity was already esablished in rome before Paul ever wrote a book. Unless you can establish a means how this happened without the circulation of the Gospels I think my point still stands |
Easy: Christianity was a mystery religion that spread like all the other mystery religions. Its gospels were not even written until after Paul's death.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
2. The time Christianity began to be recognized as a religion and the time Jesus was claimed to have lived is to short for a unified religion to have developed around a mythical figure.
Mr._C wrote
If you had said "around a historical figure", I would have given you examples of people drinking cool-aid or burning themselves to death, but since you said "mythical", I'll just use Mithraism as an example of a religion that did develop in a relatively short amount of time around a mythical figure:
source
Like Christianity, Mithraism was "not practiced until the 1st century CE."
Like Christianity, Mithraism became extremely popular by the 3rd century.
Notably, Mithraism is a cult of Zoroastrianism just as Christianity is a cult of Judaism. Additionally, it should be noted that Christianity includes many characteristics that were first used by Mithraism.
From here
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.
But I digress...
|
If they both began around the same time and in relativly the same area (certainly were on the same trade routes it is impossible to establish who borrowed from who. it is entirly possible that mithraism began as a result of the popularity of christianity exactly the same way the Gnostics began. |
Except that Mithraism began 400 years before Christianity...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
Evidence:
The New Testament manuscripts date second century but as mentioned above there is evidence contained in them of earlier manuscripts. However, Clements letters to the Church of Corinth do date to the first century. This puts organized Christianity to within as little as 50 years after Christ would have died.
Mr._C wrote
50 years. That's the best you can claim when we all know what happens to legends in the span of one year; 10 years; 20 years; 30 years.
The best contemporary example of this is Elvis Presley. Elvis died on August 16, 1977. We have pictures of his corpse. We have eye-witnesses to confirm that he was dead. We have no evidence to even hint that anything other than the only Elvis that we have is (sadly) a dead one.
Yet a mere 30 years later, we have sites like http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/ . The analogy fails on many levels, but one thing remains true: 50 years is about 49.9 years longer than humans need to create a myth. |
it is true your analagy is not really a good one since we all know elvis existed even though some believe him to be alive today. It would be impossible today to invent a ficticious personality and have wide spread acceptance of that personality being a real person. Do to how interconnected our culture is. The only way the authors of the NT could have fabricated Jesus out of thin air is to have used the method Joseph Smith used and say that Jesus existed in the distant past and in a different location rather than claim to be contempoaries living in the same region. |
You're mixing your time periods. Just because it would be almost impossible to make up a legend such as Jesus today, doesn't mean that it would have been impossible (or even unlikely) then. I think it's apparent, based on the evidences that I've presented in this debate, that the religion grew first, the myth second, and finally the gospels and the "historical" (legendary) Jesus were born.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
Codified religions during this area simply do not develop from mythical figures over short periods of time. They take time to develop and grow unless you have a central leader who teachings and or actions give a standard or rule by which the religion forms. [/
Mr._C wrote
Even if this were true, people would only have to believe that this central leader existed in order to have the same effect. They had that chance once the gospels were formed, either by word of mouth or on paper. |
The credibility of the Gospels depends upon a Historicle Jesus. |
No it doesn't.
| Quote: |
Do you realize how big a pain Christianity was to the Jews. If all the Jewish leaders had to do was go to the locale synogogues in Gallilee and research the Geneologies and report no record of Jesus they would have done so IMO that is the real silence that screams. |
That's pretty funny considering you were arguing that hardly anybody could read or write earlier in the debate.
Also: Prove that these genealogies that would have included Jesus existed at the time, and please tell me when they ceased to exist.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
Many references to Christ and Christians can be found dating back to this point
Mr._C wrote
No they can't. |
I admit there are no extant contemporary references to Jesus but there are plenty of references that date back to a point that sufficiently establish Jesus's place in history. How does one explain them together without assuming a historicle figure behind the referances? |
So you admit that there are no contemporary references to Jesus. Then turn around and vaguely reference non-contemporary references. Again. We've been through these, and I've soundly refuted them all. If this is the best you've got, I'll accept your concession and I won't have to be up until 1am addressing non-evidences anymore 
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
however the most compelling is that of "Thallus" who's writings date from 52 A.D.
Mr._C wrote
Neither the date nor the premise is correct.
From here:
The date:
The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology.
This leaves us with no clue as to when Thallus wrote. Since the 1st-century darkness was probably not mentioned in the "brief compendium," there is no reason to suppose that the date of 109 BC is incorrect--there is nothing physically wrong with the text, nor any other reason to suspect an error (although Mosshammer claims otherwise, his reasoning is hard to justify). However, if Thallus did mention the darkness in another work (probably the Histories), he clearly had to have written after 28 AD. Although the guess of 52 AD as the end-date for the compedium is the one most commonly mentioned, if the date is wrong at all then 92 AD is more likely correct. But all these possible dates--109 BC, 52 AD, 92 AD--only give us the "time after which" he had to have written this "brief compendium." These dates do not tell us when he wrote the Histories or whatever work that mentioned the darkness.
It is also supposed that the final date covered by the compendium should be close to the time the compendium was written, but that also does not follow. Eusebius, for instance, wrote a world chronicle that ended some thirty years before he wrote it. Moreover, when an author writes a compendium there is no telling how much history he intends to cover, or how far back he will end it--and a work as short as three books might very well have been so short because it was unfinished. In other words, the "compendium" could have ended in 109 BC even if it was written in 109 AD, and if the compendium's end-date was 52 AD or 92 AD, it could still have been written in 109 AD, or later. So we have to look elsewhere for a "time before which" Thallus wrote. All we have is this: the first time Thallus is ever mentioned is by Theophilus, writing around 180 AD, which leaves us with over a century of grey area: Thallus could have written any time between 28 and 180 AD. And if he did not mention an eclipse occurring in the first century, then he could have written any time between 109 BC and 180 AD, a span of almost three centuries.
This is where proper historical method turns the tables on Christian apologists. The usual argument is that Thallus is the earliest witness to the gospel tradition, proving that the story was circulating, and taken seriously enough by pagans to debunk it, before the 2nd century. But the opposite reasoning applies: since we do not know that Thallus wrote in the 1st century, but know that he could have written in the 2nd, and since no other sources attest to any gospel tradition earlier than the 2nd century, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century--or at the earliest, the 90's AD, since there is some evidence that Josephus referred to Luke in that decade, although that same evidence just as easily suggests that Luke used Josephus, dating that gospel after 96 AD. Otherwise, since all other sources which mention any gospel tradition appear only in the 2nd century, and Thallus may easily have written in that period, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century. This conclusion would change if any further data were rescued from the sands of time which made an earlier date more plausible, but odds are, Thallus is not the earliest witness to the gospel tradition. Even at best, there is at present no reason to assume he is.
The premise:
What exactly is Thallus supposed to have said about Jesus? We don't really know. We can only guess, based on an obscure passage passed down to us second-hand which already shows signs of at least one interpolation. George Syncellus, a 9th-century monk, composed a world chronicle, quoting verbatim from numerous previous chroniclers, one of whom being the 3rd-century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus. In one such case, Africanus is quoted regarding "what followed the savior's passion and life-giving resurrection" as follows:
This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?
This is all we get. It isn't clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all. Africanus is merely criticising the possibility that the darkness at the death of Christ was a solar eclipse, and thus a natural rather than a supernatural event--an attack addressed in the Apology of Tertullian, and voiced by the Jews in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which may have been written in the time of Africanus. Although this implies that Thallus mentioned the death of Christ in some way, it does not entail it. For Thallus may have simply recorded an eclipse that occurred around the time that Christ was believed to have died, with Africanus connecting the events on his own. We do not have the context of this quote, and we do not know what else Africanus said about this event or about Thallus. Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.
Essentially, your best evidence comes from a 9th century monk, Syncellus, who is apologizing for a reference made by Africanus, who wrote in the 3rd century, who is apologizing for a possible reference to Thallus, who may have referenced a solar eclipse.
The date of the eclipse is unknown. The date that Thallus may or may not have written it is likely 100-200 years after it could have possibly occurred.
Lastly, The passage for which Africanus is apologizing, may have actually come from Phlegon (not Thallus), who wrote in the 140's CE:
Africanus wrote in the early 3rd century. His contemporary, Origen, also cites Phlegon's mention of an earthquake and eclipse but does not repeat the exaggerations. Indeed, he expressly denies one of them in his commentary on Matthew, stating that "Phlegon, who mentioned an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, did not say that it happened during the full moon." This suggests that the exaggerated quote, which would surely have been seized upon as a valuable testimony, did not yet exist, in Africanus or anywhere else. But it appears in Agapius in the 10th century. And by the time of Michael the Syrian, in the 12th century, the Phlegon quote had already gone way over the top, to include the astonishing sentence: "the dead were resurrected, entered Jerusalem and said 'Woe to the Jews!'" Syncellus wrote in the 9th century. So a copier of his work who had also read Agapius probably put two and two together and gullibly added the note, which was eventually pulled into the text as copies continued to be made by other scribes.
|
I do not doubt the facts presented by Carrier but I do not think the interpration is warrented that "Thallus" is of no use. The great debate outlined above over whether or not darkness covered the land is also evidence since both sides assumes Jesus lived and died since it would have been possible for the opponants to have argued Jesus did not exist and the argument over darkness would have been rendered moot. |
So a monk and some other non-contemporaries thought Jesus existed? You don't say? 
Also, "It would have been possible" for them to argue anything. The fact that they didn't is not evidence for anything, except that they didn't argue the point that you thought they should have.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Romans wrote
3. References from literature.
Evidence:
I realize this is where the argument is usually happens. I do not wish to rehash what is normally put forward so I will limit my evidence to two references
A. Thallus - "Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse." (Harry Martin Proving the Historic Jesus 1995)
Mr._C wrote
I already covered this above, so I'll move on.
Romans wrote
B. Tacitus - "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular." (Harry Martin Proving the Historic Jesus 1995)
Mr._C wrote
Tacitus lived from 55-120 CE, so he could not have been a contemporary of Jesus'.
As a consequence of this:
"Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity. |
1. Tacticus did not qualify his statements as hearsay and would have extreme consequences if he was ever found out to be unreliable. |
Hmmm...
Contrast that with this:
Tacitean studies, however, extend far beyond the field of history. His work has been read for its moral instruction, its gripping and dramatic narrative, and its inimitable prose style; he has been (and still is) most influential as a political theorist, outside the field of history
And this:
Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned: the Annals are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability, and there are some obvious minor mistakes (for instance confusing the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, both named Antonia). The Histories, written from primary documents and intimate knowledge of the Flavian period, is thought to be more accurate, though Tacitus' hatred of Domitian seemingly colored its tone and interpretations.
(wiki)
| Quote: |
2. You admit he had access to documents cinfirming that Jesus was executed by the Roman empire so either he was depending on official documents for information or the crucifixion was so well known he thought it unecessary to question it's reality. |
I only admitted that he was simply regurgitating what he had heard. By the way, a myth "so well known that he thought it unnecessary to question its reality" sounds familiar, as it reminds me of every religion that exists or has ever existed 
| Quote: |
3. Pilates title doesn't mean anything because both titles could have been true of Pilate since positions and titles change. |
Uh huh. Except that it was incorrect, but other than that...
| Quote: |
4. It's not like Jesus had a social security card or a given name. |
You've contradicted yourself again. You said earlier that it would be super-duper easy for Jews to just look him up and verify his historicity. Shall I disregard that point or this one, or both?
| Quote: |
People were described by what they are known for. Even Jesus title on the cross was "King of the Jew's" a title that could have only been held by the Messiah aka Christ. So I would something more concrete to accept this point. |
You're referencing the gospels for that title, first of all. Secondly, this was a very common title during the 1st century, and was even applied to the Herod the Great.
Conclusion:
In order to verify the historical existence of a historical god-man, the real world requires evidence. So far Romans120 has offered none. Rather than regurgitating the same arguments that have been addressed and refuted so far in this debate, I would like to challenge Romans120 to offer one single piece of evidence that would substantiate existence of the legend he calls Jesus. But this is something that nobody has ever been able to offer up, because it doesn't exist. And neither do supernatural god-men. |
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
