 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
So Boris, you are willing to acknowledge that Socrates never existed? |
I am willing to acknowledge he may have never existed.
quote:
By the same standards you are applying to Christ, we cannot believe in a Socrates? |
Who said anything about "cannot believe?" It's not about belief. It's merely stating we don't have conclusive evidence Socrates or Christ existed.
Imran:
quote:
A man not interested in glory writing such an immense body of work? I find that a little hard to believe. |
Why does one have to be interested in personal glory to write prolificly? Plato was an intellectual, a philosopher. He wrote because he had ideas to share.
Plenty of authors pen works under pseudonyms, so it's not hard to believe at all. Plato's use of Socrates as an educational tool is entirely believable--it's far more compelling to present ideas in the form of a dialogue, even between fictitious people, than to just state "this is my theory..."
In the 19th century, Franz Schubert made up a fictional persona for his treatises on music theory. More recently, Carlos Casteneda made up his Don Juan persona for his own teachings. Authors often insert themselves into their works under a fictitious persona for whatever reasons. Saying it's incredibly strange is silly, because it happens all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
What conclusive evidence can someone give me that Shakespeare really lived?
How about Hannibal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Actually, I'm really rather more intrigued of conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great existed as a person. Or Julius Caesar
...and I'm sure you're able to come up with more than a few busts and passed down lessons of history?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
What conclusive evidence can someone give me that Shakespeare really lived? |
We can prove conclusively through first-hand documentation that a man named William Shakespeare from Stratford existed. We have his birth record, we have numerous merchant contracts with his name and signature on them, and other such records.
However, when one approaches the question of whether or not William Shakespeare the Stratford merchant was the same William Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet, it gets dicey. But that's only because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, may have written the works instead. It's not conclusive. There is, however, little documentary evidence that the Stratfordian was the man who actually penned the works, as even the signature of the playwright is dramatically different than the signature of the Stradfordian.
It's a raging debate in the academic world.
quote:
How about Hannibal? |
Again, we have numerous contemporary accounts of Hannibal, both from Roman and Carthaginian sources. There exists at least some documentary evidence that says he existed. It's possible he was a fabrication of some sort, but it seems unlikely, considering the evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
Is everyone from Missori? You know, "the show me state"? If it wasn't seen on TV it might not be true.
IMO, everything is questionable yet arbitrary. The ends do not justify the beginnings more so they develop the beginnings. Does that make sense?
Did Jesus exist? Who knows, does it matter? Because of dedicated followers of a dogma (religous, political, or social) a religion that says he did has shaped the world in countless ways. Whether Jesus existed as a single man, a group of people, a figment of ones imagination does not really matter. More so, because a large group of people believe he did, he therefore became.
I think therefore I am? How about; we think therefore he is?
If seeing is believing, could it not work the other way? It does all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But that's only because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, may have written the works instead.
|
That's the best one, too!
quote:
Again, we have numerous contemporary accounts of Hannibal, both from Roman and Carthaginian sources. There exists at least some documentary evidence that says he existed. It's possible he was a fabrication of some sort, but it seems unlikely, considering the evidence. |
The evidence that outweighs Jesus' how, exactly? Do specify comtemporary accounts, por favor!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
So, there was a man named Jesus who had a dad named Joseph and a brother named James. I think the real question is; did he exist in the fashion that christians believe? I.e. walking on water, curing the sick, turning water to wine, etc. through the devine power of some guy named GOD. |
As I said before and still maintain, belief in these things is not necessary to listen to what Jesus had to say. The sermon on the mount truely was revolutionary.
As well, history records a lot of other people besides Jesus working these kinds of "miracles." I cited Vespasian, for example. It was almost common practice in Judea to raise the dead. As well, I really believe that some of these people were actually not dead, but only thought to be dead.
For example, if, by stabbing Jesus the way he was stabbed served to clear his lungs of fluid, the Roman soldier may just have save Jesus's life instead of killing him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
I take it that one dies on a cross by water filling the lungs.
|
Water in the lungs. 
Read the quote again Ned.
Plus you don't address the second point.
http://www.dyeager.org/skeptic/deathofjesus.php
Note, the usual death on the cross.
Other contributing factors:
Hypovolemic shock
Exhaustion
Dehydration
Stress induced arrhythmias
Congestive heart failure
cardial and pleural effusions
cardiac rupture.
Blood and water pouring from Christ's side is sympomatic of cardaic rupture.
"
Much speculation has centered on the exact location of the puncture wound and thus the source of the resulting blood and water. However, the Greek word (pleura) that John used clearly denotes the area of the intercoastal ribs that cover the lungs (Netter, 1994, p. 184). Given the upward angle of the spear, and the thoracic location of the wound, abdominal organs can be ruled out as having provided the blood and water.
A more likely scenario would suggest that the piercing affected a lung (along with any built-up fluid), the pericardial sac surrounding the heart, the right atrium of the heart itself, the pulmonary vessels, and/or the aorta. Since John did not describe the specific side of the body on which the wound was inflicted, we can only speculate about which structures might have been impaled by such a vicious act. However, the blood could have resulted from the heart, the aorta, or any of the pulmonary vessels. Water probably was provided by pleural or pericardial fluids (that surround the lungs and heart). "
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/r&r0201a.htm
quote:
As I said before and still maintain, belief in these things is not necessary to listen to what Jesus had to say.
|
Christ did also claim to be God. Why do you regard him as authoritative in some things, but not in others?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He could have placed himself in a dialogue, instead of a fictional character who speaks to the great philosophical minds of the day. And writing to share your ideas definetly shows a inkling of wanting personal glory. |
He could have, but maybe he didn't. Since there are plenty of examples of other authors doing so, it certainly is possible. As for the "glory" notion, that's just patently absurd and cynical. I'm writing a lot of stuff that share my ideas, even on this message board, and it has nothing to do with personal glory. You're trying to assign a value that perhaps you hold to other people's intentions. There are people who do not value glory in this world, but still want to share ideas.
You skipped my examples. Why did Casteneda use Don Juan as his mouthpiece rather than put himself in his writings? Why have this fictional character running around discovering and discussing all his philosophical ideas for him? If Castaneda did it, why not Plato?
Writing and philosophy is replete with instances of such, and to say it is "implausible" is simply wrong--we know for a fact it is plausible, as it has been done. Even those who believe Socrates existed acknowledge that in Plato's later works, it is pure Plato coming out of Socrates's mouth.
So if even the scholars say Plato used Socrates as a mere mouthpiece for his own ideas in the later works, why is it "implausible" he did so in earlier ones?
quote:
If Socrates was fictional, I'd think that the people he spoked to would say that they have no idea who this guy that bested them was.
|
Did Euthyphro exist? Do we have any record of him outside of Plato's writing? Perhaps he is fictional as well?
I don't see people bothering to write down that they insist they didn't see Forrest Gump at the White House in the 1960s, either!
One thing we do get about Socrates over Jesus is a physical description. Plato describes in some detail, at least, what he looked like. Amazingly enough, there isn't a single description of what Jesus looked like, even in the Bible!
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 29-03-2003 at 06:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
OK, back to the loooong argument. Monkie, thanks for the thoughts, think you're swell as well. As an aside, I haven't rejected religion my whole life, not at all. I even went through a semi-fundie period in early college. But I have reflected a great deal on my personal beliefs, and more and more I came to realize that religion is not something I can ascribe to and maintain a personal claim of rationality.
obiwan,
quote:
Boris is not as far along as you are as he is arguing that Christ never existed, while you seem to argue that he did exist. |
Either you're not reading what I say carefully enough or you're twisting my words. I have never stated that Jesus never existed, nor am I arguing such. I am saying that there is no documentary evidence of his existence. So we can lay that canard to rest.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
True, that point alone will not prove that Christ is a real person, but it does reinforce the Gospels as a historical source for that time period if they accurately protray Jerusalem and the surrounding environs. |
No one here ever questioned that the writers of the Gospels didn't know some basics of the area. But again, that only means so much. Catcher in the Rye (thanks monkie, d'oh!) is geographically accurate, but not remotely historical.
At any rate, there are instances in the gospels that bring into question a knowledge of geography and culture of the region. For instance, John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." No such place as Aenon exists near Salim. John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ." Bethsaida is in the Golan region, east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which is west of the river.
And in Mark:
"Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30. Of course, one would never know all this from the King James version which - apparently completely ignoring a perfectly clear Greek text - says "Departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark!" - (Frank R. Zindler)
And where is Nazareth? No such place existed in 1st century Judea, and nowhere is it even mentioned in the Olt Testament, the writings of Josephus (a detailed description of the cities of Galilee) or the epistles, which come before the Gospels. There's not archeaological evidence for it, either.
Culturally, Mark 10:12 states that Jesus said a woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery. Well gee, in Palestine at the time, women couldn't divorce their husbands anyway--only men could procure divorces. Why would Jesus mention something so irrelevant to their culture? Answer: the author of Mark, a non-Palestinian, was writing for gentiles, not Jews.
quote:
Your source does not dispute the authorship of the Gospels, all it shows is that the scholars do not agree on who wrote which Gospel first. |
It does, on other pages:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience."
quote:
However, as a historical document, is it necessary to know the exact date of composition in order to determine the reliability of the source?
Yes, it helps to know if a source was written one generation or two, but will it matter if the source was written in 25 years or 30 years after the event? |
Certainly it is important, if just to test the validity of the accounts. 30 years is a long time to go by for word-of-mouth accounts. When one is looking for documentary evidence, accounts from 3 decades later don't cut it. Why would I rely on an uncited "history" of World War II written in 1985 instead of relying on documentary evidence from the time period when events actually occured?
quote:
From my Tacitus source:
"I have already noted that Tacitus' scruples and concern for accuracy were such that he always indicated when he reported rumors as such, and the Livia/Agrippa story is no exception. The story in question, from the first book of the Annals, is clearly reported by Tacitus as a rumor. He was consistent in discerning rumor from fact--as I noted from a Tacitean scholar, he did this with the sort of scruples rare in an ancient historian."
From this point, I say that Tacitus provides a reliable extra-biblical reference to Christ of Nazareth. |
There are several indications that what Tacitus wrote shouldn't be unquestioningly accepted as gospel truth. The first is that even Tacitus was prone to making errors. The second is that within the passage itself, there are two glaring errors that Tacitus would not commit, being as diligent as he was--he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator," which wasn't his title at all--he was a prefect. Apologists say the terms were interchangeable, but this is patently false. If Tacitus was relying on some sort of official Roman document, he would certainly have had Pilate's proper title in front of him. Then there is Tacitus's referral to Jesus as "Christos." This is extremely odd, since it is a Greek word meaning "The Annointed," not the name of a man. No Roman document would have referred to a Jew by such a title, and Tacitus certainly would have known it was a Greek title, not a name. Also, the tortures Tacitus describes for the Christians at the hands of Nero are dubious at best, especially since Seutonius, as staunch a critic of Nero as any, pointedly states that Nero made sure lives were never sacrificed in public entertainments--even criminals! Clearly, Tacitus and Seutonius are in contradiction here. And of the two, Seutonius is regarded as the one who is more reliable, as he held less of a bias against the emperors.
Tacitus's passage cannot be relied upon as prima facie, because it requires far too many assumptions and ignoring too many errors. The most likely explanation is that he relied upon contemporary Christian stories for the explanation of the origin of the term "Christians." He wasn't interested in Christians, but in showing Nero as a tyrant. He was going for a cursory explanation to his readers as to who Nero was abusing, and had no reason not to take the stories of Christian origins at face value, since it was an inconsequential matter to his text. Regardless of all that, without knowing what Tacitus based this on, if anything other than common stories of his day, we still cannot consider it anything other than the barest of circumstantial evidence.
quote:
No it does not. But it does give credence as to the existence of the founder of the cult. If you see a cult founded by L. Ron Hubbard, this is evidence as to the existence of a L. Ron Hubbard. If you report the existence of Christians, you would expect to find a leader of the cult named Christ. |
Was Osiris real or fictional? Zeus? The existence of a cult around a godhead is not indicative of the actual existence of said godhead. It relies, again, on assumption.
quote:
No, they are not, but they do raise the question of why. Why would the Romans persecute people belonging to a cult headed by a leader who did not exist? Again, this is evidence that somebody lead a cult of Christians. |
Absolutely not. Roman persecution of Christians was done for political reasons, not religious. Christians were seen as political troublemakers, because they denied the authority of the emperor. That is what led to their persecutions. It is ludicrous to assert that persecution of a sect is evidence that the purported figure the sect worships is real. Now certainly Paul was real, but that's as close as you'll get to this supposed figurehead.
quote:
"vague as the Gospels?"
The Gospels are very clear on this issue. Christ died, and rose again. All you need to do to deflate the Christians is to provide the body of Christ, who was buried inside of the tomb.
|
I don't know what you're trying to do, but for the upteenth time, NOTHING I am arguing about has ANYTHING to do with the notion of Jesus's supposed resurrection. If I am arguing about proof of the very existence of Jesus, suffice it to say that don't care diddly about what the Gospels say about the resurrection of someone who may not have even existed.
The gospels are vague in their detail of Jesus's life, it's as simple as that. Putting together a substantial biography of Jesus as proved a stumper for historians, since we have NO documentary evidence of his existence.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 29-03-2003 at 20:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
In the Gospels he states that he is the son of God several times, go look it up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
Here we see the difference between critical thinking and a critical attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bethsaida is in the Golan region, east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which is west of the river. |
The location of Bethsaida is uncertain. Of course there are archeologists who feel certain the trans-Jordan factors outweigh others, and the skeptics cling to those references with greater certainty still.
quote:
"Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30. Of course, one would never know all this from the King James version which - apparently completely ignoring a perfectly clear Greek text - says "Departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark!" - (Frank R. Zindler) |
 I love the way these guys quote from the KJV and then ignore the 400 year difference in use of vocabulary. In the past the word "coast" did not mean only seacoast, more generally the borders of an area. The abysmal ignorance might belong to the observer, rather than the text.
Secondly, Jesus went to "the region of Tyre and Sidon," not the city of Tyre or Sidon (7:24). This indicates the section of Phoenicia to the North of Galilee, rather than the shores around Ptolemais to the West. The exact border is not certain, extending either to the small lake or to the Jordan upstream, but the distance was little more than 15 miles.
Lastly, Jesus wasn't going directly back, as Mr. Zindler assumes. He swung "through the midst of the region of Decapolis." No mention is made of events until he returns to the Sea of Galilee. To assert this was a one-day trip is far beyond the information given.
 Quoting from idiots who don't do their homework on the passages criticised won't help your points. Take care that in grinding your axe you are not blinded by the sparks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
Here we see the difference between critical thinking and a critical attitude. |
Speaking of being critical, funny how you harp on the least significant and most tangental points in the argument.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bethsaida is in the Golan region, east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which is west of the river. |
The location of Bethsaida is uncertain. Of course there are archeologists who feel certain the trans-Jordan factors outweigh others, and the skeptics cling to those references with greater certainty still. |
http://www.eretz.com/pilgrim/archive/bethsa.htm
The archealogical evidence for the eastern location is pretty strong, IMO. It seems to me those insisting on the western site are using the circular reasoning that the Bible says so, so it must be that one.
quote:
I love the way these guys quote from the KJV and then ignore the 400 year difference in use of vocabulary. In the past the word "coast" did not mean only seacoast, more generally the borders of an area. The abysmal ignorance might belong to the observer, rather than the text
Secondly, Jesus went to "the region of Tyre and Sidon," not the city of Tyre or Sidon (7:24). This indicates the section of Phoenicia to the North of Galilee, rather than the shores around Ptolemais to the West. The exact border is not certain, extending either to the small lake or to the Jordan upstream, but the distance was little more than 15 miles. |
Now I question your critical thinking skills, as Zindler is referring to the original Greek text, not the KJV from 400 years ago, as you're saying. So you're link to the English dictionary is patently pointless.
Funny how those who accuse of others of having axes to grind seem to be the one who get most defensive and bitter when their standard assumptions are challenged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
He denied that he had ever said such a thing at his trial. |
ned:
Not quite...
Luke 22:66-70
"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ,[4] " they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
The key point here is what did the Jews mean when they asked about the Christ? Their perception of Christ equated with a political messiah, one who would free the Jews from the Romans. Jesus was not this type of Christ, he would not save the Jews in this world, but more importantly, the next.
Do note, that he testifies to being the Son of God to the Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think that one must be answered on faith
Jon Miller
who thinks that God usually uses what would be called natural means, but does not rule out the 'supernatural' (of course one could argue that everything God does is natura)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Boris:
quote:
I am saying that there is no documentary evidence of his existence.
|
Do you believe Christ exists, Boris?
If not, then this is just semantics.
Trust me, I am reading your points very carefully.
quote:
is geographically accurate, but not remotely historical.
|
You need to tighten your definitions. Catcher in the Rye may be fiction, but one can use fiction to study history.
For example, what about Oscar Wilde? By studying the obvious fictional work, we know quite a bit about the mode of dress for the upper class at the end of the Victorian Era.
The key here is my claim about the Gospel. I am not claiming that the Gospels are historical in the same sense as a fictional work, but as a documentary of the times.
One aspect reinforcing the Gospels as a documentary would be an accurate geography.
quote:
Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! |
Ignoring the rather flippant passage, the writer assumes that Christ wanted to take the most direct route. Clearly, if this were the purpose, Christ has taken a bizarre route, or Mark has gotten the story wrong, as this author alleges.
But what if Christ had different motives for taking this route? We know, from John, that Herod Antipas wanted to kill Jesus, and many others had tried to appoint Christ as a political king. By taking a more circuitous route, Jesus could avoid some of these unnecessary delays.
quote:
John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. |
There can be two Bethsaidas. This can explain the added detail, Bethsaida of Galilee to distinguish from Bethsaida in Gaza.
quote:
"John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." No such place as Aenon exists near Salim.
|
According to whom? Archaeologists? Your quote does not specify.
I'm surprised that you are attacking John's Gospel. It is widely regarded as the best of the 4 Gospels with regards to accurate geography.
quote:
There's not archaeological evidence for it, either.
|
Nazareth:
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/nazareth.html
"Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE]. But since it had only one spring, the ancient settlement was never large. The 1st c. village, whose population was less than 500, was overshadowed by the fortified town of Japha just one mile south---described by Josephus as the "largest village in Galilee" (Vita 230)---and the city of Sepphoris, just 3.5 miles to the northwest.
Nazareth itself was not a site of historic or major strategic importance &, thus, did not merit notice in any ancient text apart from the gospel references to it as the place of Jesus' origin."
quote:
Why would Jesus mention something so irrelevant to their culture?
|
Irrelevant to John the Baptist? Both Jesus and John wanted to condemn Herod Antipas who married his own brother's wife while his brother still lived, in violation of the Mosaic law.
This is another explanation, on top of the valid one you listed already, that Mark's audience was the Gentiles, which is why he would choose to present this particular saying.
quote:
It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark.
|
They are talking about priority, not authorship. This writer argues for Markan priority over the more traditional Matthean priority.
quote:
When one is looking for documentary evidence, accounts from 3 decades later don't cut it.
|
Depends on the age. Surely, you do not argue that the same criteria apply for histories written only 50 years old, as compared to 2000!
quote:
The gospels are vague in their detail of Jesus's life, it's as simple as that.
|
Details include the death and resurrection.
I think they are extremely clear when compared with any other historical source for the time.
quote:
Now certainly Paul was real,
|
* Ben Kenobi frames on door.
Why?
quote:
That is what led to their persecutions. It is ludicrous to assert that persecution of a sect is evidence that the purported figure the sect worships is real.
|
I've consolidated these points. Clearly you are confusing two terms. Persecution is no evidence that Christ is right, it can only be used as evidence of someone stirring the pot. Who holds the straw? According to the Romans, we do not know. The Gospels offer an explanation for the formation of Christianity, as does Tacitus and Josephus, someone called Christ.
Given a choice between no explanation and one explanation, the historian will generally choose the one explanation.
Last point,
Tacitus:
quote:
The first is that even Tacitus was prone to making errors.
|
No different from any other historian.
quote:
Regardless of all that, without knowing what Tacitus based this on, if anything other than common stories of his day, we still cannot consider it anything other than the barest of circumstantial evidence.
|
Not unusual for the time, for a historian to not detail his sources. For anything else, we would accept Tacitus, but there is nothing special about this passage.
quote:
he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator," which wasn't his title at all--he was a prefect.
|
How then do both terms differ?
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_...TC.html#tacproc
"What evidence is there for the easy interchange of these terms? Meier notes [Meie.MarJ, 100] that in a "backwater province" like Judea, there was probably not much difference between the two roles. This assertion is backed up by literary evidence. Philo and Josephus were not consistent in the usage of the terms either: Josephus calls Pilate a "procurator" in Antiquities 18.5.6, the story about Pilate bringing images into Jerusalem. (It has not been suggested, but we may wonder if, in a backwater like Judea, Pilate may have held both titles!)"
quote:
Then there is Tacitus's referral to Jesus as "Christos." This is extremely odd, since it is a Greek word meaning "The Annointed,
|
"Like the above objection, however, it is not considered at all problematic by any Tacitean or other historian. Rather than find some deficiency in Tacitus because of this, it is more plausible to recognize that Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be most familiar - and that would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was executed under."
Same source as above.
quote:
Clearly, Tacitus and Seutonius are in contradiction here. |
Hey! Can I cite Seutonius as an accurate source?
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Again, from the source above.
As for the contradiction,
Both Seutonius and Tacitus agree to the existence of Christ. Where they disagree is the extent that the Christians were persecuted.
Regardless of which source you regard as authoritative, both cite evidence towards the existence of Christ.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2003 20:50
|