Did Jesus exist?

[pakeha]

What accusation? I'd understood you to have written that Tacitus was an eyewitness to the Great Fire. How is that an accusation?





Could you link the post where you comment about the fact that my arguments are grossly inconsistent with the way historians actually practice their disciple*, please?


* I think you probably meant discipline there.

I responded.

I did mean discipline. I blame *********** autofill on the ipad which i hate so much.

No, you haven't responded in any meaningful way.
Here's the question again:
"Could you link the post where you comment about the fact that my arguments are grossly inconsistent with the way historians actually practice their disciple*, please?


* I think you probably meant discipline there"

Rather than snipping my question, how about responding to it?

ETA
To clear up my confusion about what exactly you meant to say about Tacitus, could you explain just what you think he was an eyewitness to, please?

 

[The Big Dog]

To clear up my confusion about what exactly you meant to say about Tacitus, could you explain just what you think he was an eyewitness to, please?

Sure, what i said that Tacitus did not have to actually have to put eyeballs on the flames to be a an actual eyewitness to the EVENTS regarding Nero's prosecution of the Christians, nor does he have to be in order for his annals to be considered authoritative and authentic.

Thanks for posting.

 

[dejudge]

Sure, what i said that Tacitus did not have to actually have to put eyeballs on the flames to be a an actual eyewitness to the EVENTS regarding Nero's prosecution of the Christians, nor does he have to be in order for his annals to be considered authoritative and authentic.

Thanks for posting.

If that is what you said then you put forward the absurd notion that anything found in Tacitus Annals is authentic or historically accurate.

You keep forgetting that you are parading an 11 century copy of Annals which was manipulated.

The very same passage which is questioned is the very passage that has been proven to have been altered.

The very same passage in Tacitus Annals 15.44 has never been quoted by any Apologetic writer for hundreds of years which suggest that there was no such passage until after the start of the 5th century.

There is zero provenance for Tacitus Annals with Christus up to the start of the 5th century and later.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was unknown even to the Church of Rome and was never used in the "Church History".

 

[The Big Dog]

If that is what you said then you put forward the absurd notion that anything found in Tacitus Annals is authentic or historically accurate.

You keep forgetting that you are parading an 11 century copy of Annals which was manipulated.

The very same passage which is questioned is the very passage that has been proven to have been altered.

The very same passage in Tacitus Annals 15.44 has never been quoted by any Apologetic writer for hundreds of years which suggest that there was no such passage until after the start of the 5th century.

There is zero provenance for Tacitus Annals with Christus up to the start of the 5th century and later.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was unknown even to the Church of Rome and was never used in the "Church History".

lolz. Remember when I blew up your "missing text" theory and you went on an epic gish gallop? That was special.

Tacitus is considered authentic and authoritative by all but the most fanatical Mythicians.

 

[pakeha]

No, you haven't responded in any meaningful way.
Here's the question again:
"Could you link the post where you comment about the fact that my arguments are grossly inconsistent with the way historians actually practice their disciple*, please?


* I think you probably meant discipline there"

Rather than snipping my question, how about responding to it?

ETA
To clear up my confusion about what exactly you meant to say about Tacitus, could you explain just what you think he was an eyewitness to, please?

Sure, what i said that Tacitus did not have to actually have to put eyeballs on the flames to be a an actual eyewitness to the EVENTS regarding Nero's prosecution of the Christians, nor does he have to be in order for his annals to be considered authoritative and authentic.

Thanks for posting.

OK.
In that case, what were his sources for that Neronian persecution of the Christians and for the mention of Pilate?

You wrote here:
"On the other hand, did have first hand knowledge that Nero was said to have blamed the Christians? Of course he did "
How do you know that?


And you forgot to answer my other question:
"Here's the question again:
"Could you link the post where you comment about the fact that my arguments are grossly inconsistent with the way historians actually practice their disciple*, please?


* I think you probably meant discipline there"

Rather than snipping my question, how about responding to it?"

In your last reply, you snipped my query yet again.
Are you going to respond to it this time around?

 

[IanS]

Sure, what i said that Tacitus did not have to actually have to put eyeballs on the flames to be a an actual eyewitness to the EVENTS regarding Nero's prosecution of the Christians, nor does he have to be in order for his annals to be considered authoritative and authentic.

Thanks for posting.

Well to be an "eye-witness" to anything, the person (anyone) must see it for themselves first hand.

But this poll, and the threads which spawned the poll, are entirely about the existence of Jesus, not about anyone seeing a fire! And iirc, you originally claimed (repeatedly) that Tacitus was an eye-witness to the execution of Jesus.

So can we at least be clear on what you are saying in respect of Tacitus ever being any kind of witness to anything that ever happened to Jesus ... Tacitus was never an eye-witness to any execution of Jesus, was he!


Repeat - Tacitus could not possibly have been an eye-witness to anything at all that ever happened to Jesus, could he!?

 

[Craig B]

Repeat - Tacitus could not possibly have been an eye-witness to anything at all that ever happened to Jesus, could he!?

Where and by whom has such a claim been made?

 

[Darat]

The major problem for those arguing that a historical Jesus existed or even is more likely to have existed than not is that they have to ignore most of the evidence we do have to construct a description of a historical person called Jesus.

There is also the problem that there is a break in the chronology that we have nothing to span. We go from no contemporary records of a Jesus that could have been the historical person, to an established religion that has a mythical (i.e. supernatural) Jesus as its claimed progenitor.

Which is why these days (now that I now know the state of the actual evidence and know how religions actually do arise) I can't see any reason nor evidence that requires a historical person to have been the founder of Christianity.

 

[Brainache]

The major problem for those arguing that a historical Jesus existed or even is more likely to have existed than not is that they have to ignore most of the evidence we do have to construct a description of a historical person called Jesus.

There is also the problem that there is a break in the chronology that we have nothing to span. We go from no contemporary records of a Jesus that could have been the historical person, to an established religion that has a mythical (i.e. supernatural) Jesus as its claimed progenitor.

Which is why these days (now that I now know the state of the actual evidence and know how religions actually do arise) I can't see any reason nor evidence that requires a historical person to have been the founder of Christianity.

You can stop looking now, I found him.

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

No worries.

 

[Darat]

You can stop looking now, I found him.

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

No worries.

I read that thread (and really enjoyed it and your posts) at the time. Well I read it until it was ..er... judged to be beyond hope.

Your thread and theory does not overcome the two objections above as it still is an" unevidenced" theory that still has to ignore most of the evidence we do have (for the description of the "historical Jesus" person).

 

[Brainache]

I read that thread (and really enjoyed it and your posts) at the time. Well I read it until it was ..er... judged to be beyond hope.

Your thread and theory does not overcome the two objections above as it still is an" unevidenced" theory that still has to ignore most of the evidence we do have (for the description of the "historical Jesus" person).

Not true.

Perhaps you should revisit the thread. Professor Eisenman has changed his work as a response to that thread.

I am amused by this.

ETA: Can you tell me who was judging my thread without mentioning it to me?

Do I not have a right to defend myself?

ETA2: Or are you referring to the point where dejudge entered the thread and continued to derail it for weeks despite repeated complaints by me? Yes, that does make more difficult to read than it needs to be...

 

[dejudge]

lolz. Remember when I blew up your "missing text" theory and you went on an epic gish gallop? That was special.

Gish Gallop!!

You blew up nothing. You forgot that Tacitus' Annals with Christus was a manipulated 11 century copy which you were using to prove there were Christians 1000 YEARS earlier.

You forgot that the very word "ChrEstian" was altered.

Tacitus is considered authentic and authoritative by all but the most fanatical Mythicians.

You keep forgetting that Desperate HJers are on a QUEST for an HJ for hundreds of years.

You keep forgetting that this is the THIRD attempt.

You forget no HJ has ever been found.

When do you believe an HJ will be found?

In the next 2000 years?

I need to get a commitment from HJers so we can wrap this thing up in a timely manner!! It is taking too long to find an HJ.

 

[Darat]

Not true.


...snip...

Oh yes it is! We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[Craig B]

I need to get a commitment from HJers so we can wrap this thing up in a timely manner!! It is taking too long to find an HJ.

Eh? Why do HJers need to give you a commitment? You can wrap up your own contributions whenever you want. If you wish to continue, why not make life interesting for yourself and the rest of us by introducing some new arguments and lines of thought?

 

[dejudge]

Eh? Why do HJers need to give you a commitment? You can wrap up your own contributions whenever you want. If you wish to continue, why not make life interesting for yourself and the rest of us by introducing some new arguments and lines of thought?

It is HJers who are SEARCHING for an HJ for at least 250 years without success. It is most reasonable that they should be asked to give some time period when they believe they can wrap up their Quest.
.

 

[Brainache]

Oh yes it is! We shall have to agree to disagree.

No I think I'll agree that you stopped reading the thread at a very early stage when it was being derailed by a Troll.

I'll agree to that.

 

[The Big Dog]

And iirc, you originally claimed (repeatedly) that Tacitus was an eye-witness to the execution of Jesus.

You don't "recall correctly" and therefore all the Red font in the world ain't gonna save you.

 

[Craig B]

It is HJers who are SEARCHING for an HJ for at least 250 years without success. It is most reasonable that they should be asked to give some time period when they believe they can wrap up their Quest.

Do you really think that? It's a very silly thing to think. Think something else.

 

[dejudge]

It is HJers who are SEARCHING for an HJ for at least 250 years without success. It is most reasonable that they should be asked to give some time period when they believe they can wrap up their Quest.

Do you really think that? It's a very silly thing to think. Think something else.

You seem quite unaware of the history of the Quest for an HJ.

You should have first done some research on the history of the Quest for an HJ because as it is evident the HJ argument is a known dead end argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

..... By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end........

 

[IanS]

pending some checks