Godless Apostate

[GGG]

My favourite part of T@Ts crusade against Jesus existing is his faith in Jesus not existing. His position isn't it is unlikely Jesus doesn't exist or on balance of probibilities Jesus never existed.

It's Jesus never existed full stop.

This means T@T has faith in something. Good old irrational faith.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by icecube

What does mention him, is either very vague and could be about a different person...

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in 64 AD there were people called the Christians (with abominable practices), who got their name from a person called Christus, who was executed by Pontius Pilatus, and that the whole Christian thing originates in Judea.

How much more specific do you need?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Itse

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in 64 AD there were people called the Christians (with abominable practices), who got their name from a person called Christus, who was executed by Pontius Pilatus, and that the whole Christian thing originates in Judea.

How much more specific do you need?

That to you is proof? The pyramids are proof of the pyramids being built a long time ago. An old document is simply an old document, in particular when documentation that came after may have been based off of the very document you mention.

Again, this is a silly argument

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

That to you is proof? The pyramids are proof of the pyramids being built a long time ago. An old document is simply an old document, in particular when documentation that came after may have been based off of the very document you mention.

Again, this is a silly argument

That's more than enough to believe it's very likely he existed.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Itse

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in 64 AD there were people called the Christians (with abominable practices), who got their name from a person called Christus, who was executed by Pontius Pilatus, and that the whole Christian thing originates in Judea.

How much more specific do you need?

Tacitus was born in 56 AD.

You believe an 8 year old? and if Jesus did so many amazing things why not call him by his real name as the later writings did.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by T@T

Tacitus was born in 56 AD.

You believe an 8 year old? and if Jesus did so many amazing things why not call him by his real name as the later writings did.

I imagine the religion started somewhere and since the story is clearly fiction, the story of Jesus had to be written years after 'his' death. The fact we have an early account of someone writing about the story (not first hand either) in no way acts as evidence of his existence.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I imagine the religion started somewhere and since the story is clearly fiction, the story of Jesus had to be written years after 'his' death. The fact we have an early account of someone writing about the story (not first hand either) in no way acts as evidence of his existence.

Tacitus on Jesus

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?

Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery [though see Cutn.JGMM, 111-2], for the evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage. The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it.

Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is so strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin [Dor.Tac, 149], and it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias [Momig.CFou, 126].

This is not to say that there are not those whom we may encounter who will suggest that this passage is an interpolation. Some will suggest that because no church father quotes the passage early in church history, it must have been added later.

No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians; moreover, indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers. The Annals may not have gotten into the Church's hands at an early date.

So, the idea that this passage is an interpolation is no more credible than the idea held in the 19th century that Tacitus' entire works are fifteenth-century forgeries.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

[Nage Waza]

I am not sure what you are arguing...nothing shows that what was written was not based off a legend even at that point in time. In fact, the story being told might not even be correct...

The religion exists today, and it has existed for about two thousand years, it had to have started somewhere, but it certainly did not involve a person with super powers. With so much wrong about the story, I tend not to believe any of it. Not that it matters, the religion certainly exists.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, in 64 AD there were people called the Christians (with abominable practices), who got their name from a person called Christus, who was executed by Pontius Pilatus, and that the whole Christian thing originates in Judea.

How much more specific do you need?

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

That to you is proof? The pyramids are proof of the pyramids being built a long time ago. An old document is simply an old document...

There is no surviving archaeological evidence for the hanging gardens of Babylon constructed by Nebuchadnezzar, and we know of their existence only from the writings of Berossus, who lived and wrote 200 years later. Is that sufficient reason to doubt they existed?

Apollonius of Tyanna was a Greek philosopher and charismatic who lived in the first century C.E., and we know only about him because of stories—some quite fantastic—that were collected and written in the mid-third century C.E. And yet, virtually all historians agree in their affirmation of the existence of Appollonius.

Just because there is no physical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth does not mean that there is no reason to think he existed. In actual fact, the case for the historical Jesus is quite strong in spite of this, and it is grounded in the emergence of the Church in the first century and the writing of the New Testament in the first and second centuries. The argument in broad outlines is that within a Second Temple Jewish cultural milieu the only real plausible historical model for the emergence of Christianity is one which is fixed on a an actual apocalyptic messianic figure. There is quite literally no theological nor ideological apparatus in place for the invention of the Jesus figure within this socio-religious context.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not sure what you are arguing...nothing shows that what was written was not based off a legend even at that point in time. In fact, the story being told might not even be correct...

BUT, what is important here is that the story as Tacitus relates it is eminently believable. Situated within Roman Palestine in mid-first century B.C.E., there is really no good reason whatsoever to doubt any part of the story as he knows it. From an historian's perspective, the existence of Jesus is not all that problematic, which is why the vast majority of historians continue to affirm its likelihood.

The problem with your dismissal of the Jesus story is in providing a valid substitute: if there was no historical Jesus, then how do you explain the origin and emergence of the Church in the first century C.E. in Roman Palestine? I am reasonably certain that your alternative model will look no better than those offered by mythicists like Richard Carrier, and these have been universally dismissed by scholars because they are so hopelessly speculative and extremely unlikely.

The religion exists today, and it has existed for about two thousand years, it had to have started somewhere, but it certainly did not involve a person with super powers. With so much wrong about the story, I tend not to believe any of it. Not that it matters, the religion certainly exists.

I would suggest from your responses that you clearly have little experience with ancient historiography generally. Your problem with the Jesus story is not an unusual problem when it comes to assessing historical accounts of various stripes written in antiquity. In short—ALL ancient historiography suffers from similar problems. ALL carry with them cultural baggage that includes deeply engrained beliefs in supernatural forces and direct, divine intervention in natural affairs.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not sure what you are arguing...nothing shows that what was written was not based off a legend even at that point in time. In fact, the story being told might not even be correct...

The religion exists today, and it has existed for about two thousand years, it had to have started somewhere, but it certainly did not involve a person with super powers. With so much wrong about the story, I tend not to believe any of it.

That's just silly. Does the existence of "Abraham Lincoln the Vampire Hunter" make the existence of Abraham Lincoln less likely? Of course not.

All throughout history there have been supernatural stories written about people who actually existed. Alexander the Great for example was the Son of the Sun, and his sister is a mermaid who still at times asks for her brother. Joan of Arc received divine instructions from God. The Catholic Church has over 10,000 saints, and every single one has a supernatural story attached to them, and most of them are historical persons. (Including for example all the previous popes.)


Pre-enlightenment history is regurarly intermixed with stories of the supernatural, exaggerations, outright fabrications and recycling of various old stories. This does not mean that none of the people in those stories exist. Just like the existence of supernatural stories about Jesus mean absolutely nothing when judging the likelihood of his actual existence. It just makes it difficult to piece together the likely facts, which is why it's better left for experts. I don't think rational people should just follow their gut feeling on topics like this.

Besides,
If Christianity had died an early death, we probably wouldn't even be debating this. People would just take the experts word on it. Which is kind of backwards when you think about it.

If it does not matter, people are more likely to just believe the experts. If it's of some importance or interest, people will form their opinions in increasingly irrational ways.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is no surviving archaeological evidence for the hanging gardens of Babylon constructed by Nebuchadnezzar, and we know of their existence only from the writings of Berossus, who lived and wrote 200 years later. Is that sufficient reason to doubt they existed?

Yes, I doubt they exist. There is no evidence they did exist. But this barely matters, since there were no miracles associated with the place (at least I don't think there were any).

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Apollonius of Tyanna was a Greek philosopher and charismatic who lived in the first century C.E., and we know only about him because of stories—some quite fantastic—that were collected and written in the mid-third century C.E. And yet, virtually all historians agree in their affirmation of the existence of Appollonius.

Good.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Just because there is no physical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth does not mean that there is no reason to think he existed. In actual fact, the case for the historical Jesus is quite strong in spite of this, and it is grounded in the emergence of the Church in the first century and the writing of the New Testament in the first and second centuries. The argument in broad outlines is that within a Second Temple Jewish cultural milieu the only real plausible historical model for the emergence of Christianity is one which is fixed on a an actual apocalyptic messianic figure. There is quite literally no theological nor ideological apparatus in place for the invention of the Jesus figure within this socio-religious context.

A religion/myth was started somewhere - perhaps this was simply the story they put together?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

BUT, what is important here is that the story as Tacitus relates it is eminently believable. Situated within Roman Palestine in mid-first century B.C.E., there is really no good reason whatsoever to doubt any part of the story as he knows it. From an historian's perspective, the existence of Jesus is not all that problematic, which is why the vast majority of historians continue to affirm its likelihood.

Believable does not mean proof, and you know it. The theory does not make proof. There appears to be some vague mention of Jesus, but nothing regarding Jesus.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The problem with your dismissal of the Jesus story is in providing a valid substitute: if there was no historical Jesus, then how do you explain the origin and emergence of the Church in the first century C.E. in Roman Palestine? I am reasonably certain that your alternative model will look no better than those offered by mythicists like Richard Carrier, and these have been universally dismissed by scholars because they are so hopelessly speculative and extremely unlikely.

I don't have to explain it, as it is pretty well unknown. It was two thousand years ago.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would suggest from your responses that you clearly have little experience with ancient historiography generally. Your problem with the Jesus story is not an unusual problem when it comes to assessing historical accounts of various stripes written in antiquity. In short—ALL ancient historiography suffers from similar problems. ALL carry with them cultural baggage that includes deeply engrained beliefs in supernatural forces and direct, divine intervention in natural affairs.

You may be wrong about that. There is no proof of Jesus.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's just silly. Does the existence of "Abraham Lincoln the Vampire Hunter" make the existence of Abraham Lincoln less likely? Of course not.

All throughout history there have been supernatural stories written about people who actually existed. Alexander the Great for example was the Son of the Sun, and his sister is a mermaid who still at times asks for her brother. Joan of Arc received divine instructions from God. The Catholic Church has over 10,000 saints, and every single one has a supernatural story attached to them, and most of them are historical persons. (Including for example all the previous popes.)

This straw man argument is not worth responding to.

Originally Posted by Itse

Pre-enlightenment history is regurarly intermixed with stories of the supernatural, exaggerations, outright fabrications and recycling of various old stories. This does not mean that none of the people in those stories exist. Just like the existence of supernatural stories about Jesus mean absolutely nothing when judging the likelihood of his actual existence. It just makes it difficult to piece together the likely facts, which is why it's better left for experts. I don't think rational people should just follow their gut feeling on topics like this.

Besides,
If Christianity had died an early death, we probably wouldn't even be debating this. People would just take the experts word on it. Which is kind of backwards when you think about it.

If it does not matter, people are more likely to just believe the experts. If it's of some importance or interest, people will form their opinions in increasingly irrational ways.

I think your experts may have their own definition of proof, it certainly does not prove anything to me. And I certainly do not think I am the one being irrational. In fact, the so called evidence you provided of Jesus is irrational - you have pointed out the earliest writing of Jesus, and because of the importance of Jesus to many people, the writing becomes evidence of his existence (and to many his godliness).

The religion started somewhere, it still exists today, yet the story may have had other permutations resulting in the story we get today (in fact, we know this to be true). A historian repeating a story he thought to be true could have been the same myth that everyone else was repeating. Just like the Hanging Gardens...

[GGG]

Naga

Is your argument

Jesus the person did not exist
Jesus the person is unlikely to have existed
On balance of probabilities Jesus did not exist
There is no proof that Jesus existed
There is no evidence that Jesus existed
While there is evidence that Jesus existed there is no difinitive proof

I'm unclear what position you are taking when you use the word "proof"

[sa226]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what his argument is. Is he waiting for an old photo to show up or something?

[sworkhard]

What he's doing is classical human psychology. When we disagree with something or dislike it we ask if we must believe it. When we want to believe something and it's implausible, we merely ask if we can believe it. Every human does this to some extent. It a double standard worth fighting.

However, if T@T is consistent, i'm not sure that skepticism itself can withstand this level of skepticism.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GGG

Naga

Is your argument

Jesus the person did not exist
Jesus the person is unlikely to have existed
On balance of probabilities Jesus did not exist
There is no proof that Jesus existed
There is no evidence that Jesus existed
While there is evidence that Jesus existed there is no difinitive proof

I'm unclear what position you are taking when you use the word "proof"

My thoughts are that the entire story is false, but that is not the intent of my argument, and that is my opinion. My argument is that people claiming there is proof of the existence of Jesus are not demonstrating any proof, when our standards for what proof is should be higher. It is a rather silly argument.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

My thoughts are that the entire story is false, but that is not the intent of my argument, and that is my opinion. My argument is that people claiming there is proof of the existence of Jesus are not demonstrating any proof, when our standards for what proof is should be higher. It is a rather silly argument.

Why are you debating the issue if you think it's a silly argument?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by sa226

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what his argument is. Is he waiting for an old photo to show up or something?

He hasn't stated what he considers proof.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

What he's doing is classical human psychology. When we disagree with something or dislike it we ask if we must believe it. When we want to believe something and it's implausible, we merely ask if we can believe it. Every human does this to some extent. It a double standard worth fighting.

However, if T@T is consistent, i'm not sure that skepticism itself can withstand this level of skepticism.

Sorry, I don't exactly understand, are you suggesting that we should question everything? I agree: I am not asking anyone to believe anything. In fact, my claim is that such an incredible story deserves incredible evidence, and since there is no incredible evidence, it must not be a true story. We should not believe, we should question. It is certainly hard to prove something from so many years ago, but scientists do it all the time, or at least provide enough information that it is generally a reasonable thought that we have proven something.

Regarding the story of Jesus, whatever actually happened I believe is no where near the truth and all we have left is the legend. I am correct about the 'no where near the truth' part, I simply extend it to the entire story since the bulk of the story is fiction. My argument is not unreasonable.

We should (I believe) use a bit (a lot) of skepticism about everything.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

He hasn't stated what he considers proof.

I don't have to, as I believe the burden of proof is on those stating the so called facts. Besides, I am clear with my position.