Did Jesus exist?

[pakeha]

It's complicated.
Tacitus WAS claimed to have been a witness to the Christian community in Rome during his boyhood.
It turns out we don't know Tacitus was in Rome at the age of 8 and 16.5 then claimed Tacitus had access to first-hand reports of the Neronian persecution of Christians.

I've yet to see 16.5 reasons for this claim, but I'm confident they'll post them up.

 

[pakeha]

...You also ignored my comments about the fact that your arguments are grossly inconsistent with the way historians actually practice their disciple. Go back and figure out where you went off the path.

I'm waiting to learn what you think my arguments were, 16.5.

 

[IanS]

Tacitus writes about the existence of Christians in Rome in Nero's day. He doesn't say that he personally witnessed their existence, let alone that he was a physical eye witness to the existence of Jesus. Now my question is simple. Where does 16.5 express a belief that Tacitus personally witnessed Jesus with his own eyes?

Well I have explained to you in some detail why I asked 16.5 to clarify whether or not he was trying to claim that Tacitus was an eye witness to events concerning Jesus. So instead of me pointing out those exchanges again, which iirc finished up with 16.5 saying that Tacitus could be an eye witness without “eyeballing” things himself, why don’t you just quote where I said that 16.5 had definitely claimed Tacitus was an eye witness to Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

... why don’t you just quote where I said that 16.5 had definitely claimed Tacitus was an eye witness to Jesus.

I note your very significant use of "definitely" here. I do not at all approve of it. See your #398.

So contrary to what 16.5 is trying to claim by introducing Tacitus as evidence of Jesus, and repeatedly talking about Tacitus as an eye-witness, he was not an eye witness to Jesus, was he?

Now, that would be interpreted by anyone as you saying 16.5 claimed Tacitus as an eyewitness. But you will say it's not. You employ tortuous language as I have noted before to make people think you have said things, but leave yourself a way out. That's why you put "iirc" in #382.

Craig, if look at the complete quote of my post above replying to 16.5, it clearly says that iirc 16.5 was trying to claim Tacitus as an eye witness to Jesus (see the highlight in the above).

See also from your #393 addressed to 16.5

So why did you introduce Tacitus, talking about him as an eye-witness and denying that he was writing hearsay, unless you were trying to claim Tacitus as evidence of Jesus?

You could say, "I didn't say 16.5 claimed Tacitus was an eyewitness of Jesus, merely that he talked about him as an eyewitness, while claiming him as evidence." Is that what you are going to say? I hope not, for it's an unpleasant mode of discourse, because it is grossly misleading, and all but the most charitable reader would say, designedly so.

 

[IanS]

I note your very significant use of "definitely" here. I do not at all approve of it. See your #398. Now, that would be interpreted by anyone as you saying 16.5 claimed Tacitus as an eyewitness. But you will say it's not. You employ tortuous language as I have noted before to make people think you have said things, but leave yourself a way out. That's why you put "iirc" in #382. See also from your #393 addressed to 16.5 You could say, "I didn't say 16.5 claimed Tacitus was an eyewitness of Jesus, merely that he talked about him as an eyewitness, while claiming him as evidence." Is that what you are going to say? I hope not, for it's an unpleasant mode of discourse, because it is grossly misleading, and all but the most charitable reader would say, designedly so.

The reason I began the sentence with the caution of saying "iirc", was of course precisely because I was not sure if that recollection was correct. And I do that very frequently, because I want to avoid saying that I know anything for certain.

But since you are continuously implying peoples dishonesty here, you should in all honesty admit from my replies above summarising just some of the exchanges I had with 16.5, that he very clearly was trying to deny that Tacitus was merely a source of hearsay on what had happened to Jesus (and that is what this thread is about, and it's who I was specifically asking him about, i.e. Jesus ... not some fire) and trying to claim Tacitus as some sort of eye-witness.

You should note (if you are being honest with yourself), that I repeatedly asked him to clarify whether or not he was trying to claim Tacitus as an eye witness to the execution of Jesus. And his responses to that were repeatedly to say that Tacitus was an eye witness and not merely a reporter of hearsay, but that he then added that he was an eyewitness to a fire, even though he knew and was repeatedly told that I was not asking about any fire, but asking him specifically about Jesus.

I think it is clear that from the start 16.5 has indeed been trying to claim Tacitus as some sort of strong evidence of Jesus. But when it was pointed out to him that Tacitus was not an eye-witness and could only be reporting hearsay (as far we can tell), he kept talking instead about a fire whilst still claiming Tacitus as an eye witness to that fire, as if that could somehow count as also being eye-witness evidence of Jesus.

But as I say, the post which you are complaining about from me, came after 16.5 replied to someone else where he seems to say that Tacitus could be an eye witness to things without actually “eyeballing” them. It was that post that prompted me to say that iirc he had been claiming Tacitus was an eye witness to Jesus (since that is what we are actually talking about in this thread, and that is what I had repeatedly and very specifically asked him about, not some fire in Rome!), and where in the next sentence I asked him to clarify if that was what he was indeed claiming.

I think 16.5 was trying to claim Tacitus as an eye witness to Jesus, or else to claim that in effect he was an eye witness. And I think he has been trying to do that because he wants to deny that Tacitus was, as far as we can honestly tell, only able to report what was hearsay about the death of Jesus. But when first asked directly about that, he kept claiming that Tacitus was indeed an eye witness but he talked of him only as an eye witness to a fire!

Well, the point is that whatever 16.5 was trying to claim - as far as anyone honestly can tell, Tacitus could not have been an eye witness to the execution of Jesus, and he could only really have known hearsay stories about whatever happened to Jesus. And that does not amount to the clear and strong evidence that 16.5 seems to think Tacitus provides for the existence of Jesus. That is what I have been trying to say to him.

 

[Craig B]

<snip>

Well, either you claimed that 16.5 claimed that Tacitus was an eyewitness to Jesus, or you didn't; but I must honestly state that after reading your post I'm none the wiser about what you are claiming you claimed he claimed about Tacitus.

 

[dejudge]

.....You could say, "I didn't say 16.5 claimed Tacitus was an eyewitness of Jesus, merely that he talked about him as an eyewitness, while claiming him as evidence." Is that what you are going to say? I hope not, for it's an unpleasant mode of discourse, because it is grossly misleading, and all but the most charitable reader would say, designedly so.

What tortuous language!! You Torture us.

It was expected.

Your HJ argument is a known dead end argument.

Your HJ was NOT the well known Christus.

Your HJ was a criminal who caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified for doing so.

Your HJ was a Nobody.

By the way, Myths have NO body.

 

[IanS]

Well, either you claimed that 16.5 claimed that Tacitus was an eyewitness to Jesus, or you didn't; but I must honestly state that after reading your post I'm none the wiser about what you are claiming you claimed he claimed about Tacitus.

What I "claimed" about it was that "iirc" he had been trying to claim Tacitus as somehow an eyewitness to Jesus such that the writing of Tacitus was not mere hearsay when it talked of the penalty executed upon "Christus". And in the post you are complaining about, I asked him to clarify whether he was claiming Tacitus as an eye witness or not.

Reviewing those exchanges from earlier posts in the thread, I still think he was trying to claim that Tacitus was somehow an "eye-witness" even if he never actually met Jesus.

What he seemed to be trying to do in all those posts of his, was to refuse any suggestion that Tacitus was merely stating hearsay in respect of Jesus. And to that end he was trying always to claim that Tacitus was indeed an eye witness, but apparently to a fire which was somehow the same as eye-witness evidence of Jesus.

What I was trying to get clear from 16.5 was an admission that, whether or not Tacitus was an eye witness to any fire, that has nothing to do with making him in any sense an eye witness to the execution of Jesus. But he wanted to avoid making any clear admission or acceptance of that, and instead kept insisting that Tacitus was indeed an eye witness, but to a fire ... and whilst simultaneously suggesting that was somehow as good as being an eye-witness to the execution of Jesus, saying such things as "he lived it" (whatever that was supposed to mean, and again mixing that up with the fire etc.), that Tacitus did not need to "eyeball" things in order to be an eye-witness, and that he had access to Roman official records as evidence of Jesus etc.

But the reason you are not finding any of this very clear, is probably the same reason that I could never get a clear answer from 16.5 on precisely what he was claiming in respect of Tacitus personally knowing anything more than hearsay about anything that happened to Jesus.

Try asking 16.5 what exactly he was claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. Try asking him how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus, and see what he says.

 

[Craig B]

<snip>Try asking 16.5 what exactly he was claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. Try asking him how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus, and see what he says.

OK, but the rest of your post still leaves me a bit bamboozled.

 

[Craig B]

Question for 16.5

I have to try asking you what exactly you were claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. And I'm asking you how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus. What do you say?

 

[dejudge]

I have to try asking you what exactly you were claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. And I'm asking you how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus. What do you say?

16.5 posts are recorded. 16.5 stated that there is NO chance Tacitus used the Bible.

See post #219.

...There is no chance that Tacitus based anything he wrote on the bible, therefore, this is an authentic independent source confirming the fact of the extreme penalty of the Christ by Pilate.

 

[Craig B]

16.5 posts are recorded. 16.5 stated that there is NO chance Tacitus used the Bible.

See post #219.

I'm going to let 16.5 speak for himself, but thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have to try asking you what exactly you were claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. And I'm asking you how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus. What do you say?

I already explained that Tacitus had access to governmental records.

 

[tsig]

I already explained that Tacitus had access to governmental records.

You're appealing to the authority of non existent Roman records?

Well, did you know that according to hidden documents Christian scribes have admitted to forging Tacitus?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're appealing to the authority of non existent Roman records?

Well, did you know that according to hidden documents Christian scribes have admitted to forging Tacitus?

Yawn. Tacitus is universally considered authentic and authoritative by the vast majority of historians, a point I have made repeatedly, due in large part to his access to records. Your made up claim is ludicrous.

 

[tsig]

Yawn. Tacitus is universally considered authentic and authoritative by the vast majority of historians, a point I have made repeatedly, due in large part to his access to records. Your made up claim is ludicrous.

Since no one knows what was in those records my made up claim is on just as good a ground as your made up claim.

Telling me that historians are biasing their claims on non existent records does more to weaken their claims than strengthen yours.

 

[The Big Dog]

Since no one knows what was in those records my made up claim is on just as good a ground as your made up claim.

Telling me that historians are biasing their claims on non existent records does more to weaken their claims than strengthen yours.

Yeah, that is not how history works. Make up all you want, your arguments are a joke, sport.

 

[dejudge]

Yawn. Tacitus is universally considered authentic and authoritative by the vast majority of historians, a point I have made repeatedly, due in large part to his access to records. Your made up claim is ludicrous.

Again, you make the same fallacious claim about the "vast majority" of historians when you had NO access to any data, or any survey.

When was the survey or poll carried out?

How many historians are Christians in the poll?

How many historians in the poll worship Jesus as a God?

How many historians are fundamentalist Christians?

In which country was the poll conducted?

You have no data but continue to spread propaganda or Chinese Whispers.

The HJ argument is a dead end argument--No HJ has ever been found for hundreds of years.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you make the same fallacious claim about the "vast majority" of historians when you had NO access to any data, or any survey.

When was the survey or poll carried out?

How many historians are Christians in the poll?

How many historians in the poll worship Jesus as a God?

How many historians are fundamentalist Christians?

In which country was the poll conducted?

You have no data but continue to spread propaganda or Chinese Whispers.

The HJ argument is a dead end argument--No HJ has ever been found for hundreds of years.

This argument is still useless and stupid.

It will always be so.

Why do you still use it?

 

[IanS]

I have to try asking you what exactly you were claiming about Tacitus personally knowing first-hand evidence of the execution of Jesus, as opposed to merely reporting (as best we can tell) hearsay about Jesus. And I'm asking you how Tacitus was claimed to know about the execution of Jesus. What do you say?

I already explained that Tacitus had access to governmental records.

Tacitus had these written Roman records? What did these records say then, can you quote them?

Where did Tacitus ever say that he got his understanding about the death of "Christus" from any Roman records?

See the relevant passage quoted below. Tacitus makes no mention of getting it from any official records.

You seem to be just trying to invent evidence to support a prior belief in Jesus.




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

The passage and its context :

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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".


No original copies of the Annals exist and the surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, written in Latin, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy.[13] It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th century and from the Benedictine abbey at Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians