IanS wrote:Zeke (and any other HJ-believers here) - look, cut the crap and the trotting around and around in the same endless decreasing circles, the bottom line is this -

- Do you have any genuine evidence to show Jesus was real? Yes or No?

Do you have any genuine evidence to show that Jesus was a myth despite the earliest relevant texts stating he was a recent (to the time they were written) historical figure?

At least we have some relatively early evidence there to support the historical Jesus. What relatively early evidence do you have for an MJ?

And no trotting around or anything of the sort. Cut the crap and just simply bring us your evidence ... if you can.

Do NOT bring up stuff like Josephus and Tacitus for the 100th time, because that cannot possibly be evidence for reasons that it’s physically 100% impossible.

You make no sense here. Why shouldn't we accept them as evidence for an HJ? Just because you say so?

Josephus mentions Jesus. Tacitus mentions the Christ. If these two are not good enough evidence for the HJ, then what is?

Why didn't both Josephus and Tacitus claim that he never existed if Jesus was a myth?

Where is the genuine evidence of Jesus?

Where is it?

Produce it?

Stop pissing about, and produce the EVIDENCE.

Where is the genuine evidence of an MJ?

Where is it?

Produce it?

Stop pissing about, and produce the EVIDENCE.

There is nothing else left to talk about … you must now produce the evidence, and make it genuine evidence to show Jesus was real (not some total pile of childish poo).

And we have provided the evidence.

Now it's your turn to provide the evidence for your MJ. Do you have access to texts that are as early as the Epistles and the Gospels and that suggest that Jesus was really a myth? If so, please give us the evidence instead of wasting our time with your evasions and trotting around.

And make sure it's genuine, ok?

What relatively early evidence do you have for an MJ?

That's easy, it's the 95% rule; if 95% is myth, then all is myth (even though GMark is, if I remember correctly, only 20% supernatural, 80% walking, talking, getting nailed to a tree, etc).

But even if we had 20 references to Jesus or his family, I doubt that would be enough for our agnostics. After all, it may have been interpreted, or a clerical error, or something.

There is nothing else left to talk about … you must now produce the evidence, and make it genuine evidence to show Jesus was real (not some total pile of childish poo rational inference from what sparse sources we have).

FTFY

IanS wrote:

Roman emperors and kings and queens were not primarily known as supernatural Gods. They were known primarily as ordinary human rulers of nations. And the things recorded of them in their vast history are 99.9% records of perfectly ordinary non-miraculous everyday commonplace actions ... such as passing various laws, sitting in judgement with their courtiers and governments, and taking their armies into battles with all sorts of other nations.

Again, this is bullshit. They were also thought of and believed to be gods. If mixing in the supernatural with the mundane is cause for throwing out a source then you should throw out the source regardless of the degree to which it's mixed in. If the supernatural taints the source then it's tainted. How do we know what else this taint extends to? If the source is willing to make up supernatural facts about its subject then why not more mundane facts?

Or, we can just be sensible, and disregard the supernatural attributions and work with whatever is left over regardless of the amount of supernatural mixed in.

You're just being arbitrary here.

Now compare that with Jesus - first there is no physical evidence, not even one microscopic speck dust, Nothing at all. Big fat ZERO.

Is physical evidence required for any figure we wish to discuss?

If so you're going to wipe out a huge amount of ancient history.

Second - in the case of Jesus there is no written so-called “evidence” of anyone at all even mentioning Jesus in his lifetime - all the so-called written “evidence” comes long after Jesus was supposed to have died.

A few decades in current estimations. Better than that for Hannibal.

And that written “evidence” turns out not actually to be evidence of a real Jesus at all, but instead merely evidence of what people who never met Jesus, later said about the stories that had previously been circulated about Jesus by the earliest Christian sources.

An assertion you make without evidence. It's just an assumption on your part.

The later non-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Josephus cannot possibly be evidence for a real Jesus, since as has been explained to you 50 times, amongst other fatal problems, those authors were not even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died.

Again, that's irrelevant. Much of written history is recorded long after the events being reported. You're applying another double standard.

That only leaves the religious accounts. But they are not evidence either, since by their own admission neither Paul nor any of the canonical gospel authors ever met Jesus at all.

Again, irrelevant as above.

All of that has been patiently explained to you, in extensive detail, dozens of times before.

And the abject feebleness, shoddy logic and double standards of your "objections" has been explained to you countless times before.

That is not the point. The point is - we do have that absolute mass of incontestable evidence for most Roman rulers. So they are not in doubt in the same way as Jesus at all ... For whom we have no genuine evidence whatsoever. See the above.

Of course it's the point. It's just inconvenient to you that your double standard is being pointed out. Just because a textual source contains "supernatural" elements doesn't mean we need to throw it out. We just need to be cautious with it and, at the very least, throw out those elements and examine the rest. Which is exactly what has been done.

No one is claiming that we can establish the level of certainty around the historicity of a figure like JC to the same degree that we can a Roman Emperor. That would be ridiculous. It would also be equally ridiculous to expect the same level of evidence to exist for a figure like JC.

No. I'm afraid the supernatural claims are very important here. Because the entire basis of the Christian gospel story of Jesus , was and is, that he is a figure who was a constant miracle worker, and who is in fact THE supernatural Lord God himself in some sort of vaguely defined alternative form.

The so called "history" of Jesus, is the history of a miracle worker, and it’s based entirely upon claims of his constant miracles.

That's at best a disingenuous exaggeration. There are many more "mundane" details within the gospels that can be examined. Much of this thread has dealt with that. Have you not been paying any attention?

There's masses of evidence to show why any honest person should be sceptical. I've described it to you in detail dozens of times in the long Jesus thread. How many times do you need to be told?

An "honest" person would realize that it's quite easy to separate out those supernatural elements and examine what's left over.

And no one is saying to not be "skeptical". Of course, be skeptical. Just apply consistent standards when doing so. Something you've failed to do.

That has been explained to you above, as well as explained to you 50 times before in the long Jesus thread. So please read all that again to see why your complaint has no validity.

Do the same to see why your objections are purest bullshit.

Look - the fact that some Roman emperors tried to claim they had the status of Gods and would have a special place in heaven, is in no way a claim that anyone at the time thought those people existed only as supernatural miracle workers. And even if anyone did ever think that, then that view is completely destroyed by the indisputable fact that we have museums literally stuffed full of evidence which shows those Roman rulers definitely did exist as real people ...

You're being absurd. People proclaimed them gods, built temples for them, worshiped them, etc, etc, etc. They were thought of as divine figures as much as any other god figure you'd like to throw out there. Some posthumously and some even during their lifetimes.

Now, either that completely compromises any written source that contains these elements or we can, sensibly, disregard those elements and work with whatever is left over. The point you seem to fail to see is that this physical evidence you keep talking about doesn't mean much of anything without these texts you keep referring to. If we throw out the texts as evidence (which you would be obligated to do) then we have no way of knowing whether these physical objects refer to an historical person or one of their gods. Without the texts to tell us otherwise how do we know that those statues and coins depict an actual person or one of their deities?

The impact and the relevance is perfectly obvious. I’ll explain it again for you (for the 28th time) - we do not bother to investigate other poorly evidenced figures, such as say Robin Hood, because those figures are of absolutely no interest to anyone today ... if you started a thread claiming Robin Hood was a real figure then you would not get many people bothering to reply, because Robin Hood is of absolutely no interest to anyone!

Actually, many people do investigate figures like Robin Hood and do you know what they find? That they aren't as well evidenced as a figure like JC. The location and time frame of what's attributed to JC is much more consistent and emerges in a much shorter time frame than do the stories about Robin Hood.

But the Jesus case is entirely different. Because the claims that Christian religion has made for Jesus, have made Jesus into the most important single figure in all human history

How does this retroactively change the evidence from the past? Answer: it doesn't. You're seemingly allowing your prejudices to guide to.

... he is the basis of theistic belief for millions of devout Christians who support and pay for the organised religion of Christianity, which directly attempts every day to exercise power & influence over national governments and over the national and international laws under which the people of all nations live. None of that is true for figure like Robin Hood or Alexander the Great is it! ... No, it is not! ... they have absolutely Zero influence on anyone ... but the influence of the Jesus stories and the resulting Christian organised religion is of absolutely vast influence on everyone on earth ...

... that’s the difference ... that’s why we are taking a much closer look at Jesus. That's why we are absolutely right to take that much more critical close look at Jesus.

None of which has the slightest bearing on the quality of the evidence we do have.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

IanS wrote:

Roman emperors and kings and queens were not primarily known as supernatural Gods. They were known primarily as ordinary human rulers of nations. And the things recorded of them in their vast history are 99.9% records of perfectly ordinary non-miraculous everyday commonplace actions ... such as passing various laws, sitting in judgement with their courtiers and governments, and taking their armies into battles with all sorts of other nations.

Again, this is bullshit. They were also thought of and believed to be gods. If mixing in the supernatural with the mundane is cause for throwing out a source then you should throw out the source regardless of the degree to which it's mixed in. If the supernatural taints the source then it's tainted. How do we know what else this taint extends to? If the source is willing to make up supernatural facts about its subject then why not more mundane facts?

Or, we can just be sensible, and disregard the supernatural attributions and work with whatever is left over regardless of the amount of supernatural mixed in.

You're just being arbitrary here.

Now compare that with Jesus - first there is no physical evidence, not even one microscopic speck dust, Nothing at all. Big fat ZERO.

Is physical evidence required for any figure we wish to discuss?

If so you're going to wipe out a huge amount of ancient history.

Second - in the case of Jesus there is no written so-called “evidence” of anyone at all even mentioning Jesus in his lifetime - all the so-called written “evidence” comes long after Jesus was supposed to have died.

A few decades in current estimations. Better than that for Hannibal.

And that written “evidence” turns out not actually to be evidence of a real Jesus at all, but instead merely evidence of what people who never met Jesus, later said about the stories that had previously been circulated about Jesus by the earliest Christian sources.

An assertion you make without evidence. It's just an assumption on your part.

The later non-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Josephus cannot possibly be evidence for a real Jesus, since as has been explained to you 50 times, amongst other fatal problems, those authors were not even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died.

Again, that's irrelevant. Much of written history is recorded long after the events being reported. You're applying another double standard.

That only leaves the religious accounts. But they are not evidence either, since by their own admission neither Paul nor any of the canonical gospel authors ever met Jesus at all.

Again, irrelevant as above.

All of that has been patiently explained to you, in extensive detail, dozens of times before.

And the abject feebleness, shoddy logic and double standards of your "objections" has been explained to you countless times before.

That is not the point. The point is - we do have that absolute mass of incontestable evidence for most Roman rulers. So they are not in doubt in the same way as Jesus at all ... For whom we have no genuine evidence whatsoever. See the above.

Of course it's the point. It's just inconvenient to you that your double standard is being pointed out. Just because a textual source contains "supernatural" elements doesn't mean we need to throw it out. We just need to be cautious with it and, at the very least, throw out those elements and examine the rest. Which is exactly what has been done.

No one is claiming that we can establish the level of certainty around the historicity of a figure like JC to the same degree that we can a Roman Emperor. That would be ridiculous. It would also be equally ridiculous to expect the same level of evidence to exist for a figure like JC.

No. I'm afraid the supernatural claims are very important here. Because the entire basis of the Christian gospel story of Jesus , was and is, that he is a figure who was a constant miracle worker, and who is in fact THE supernatural Lord God himself in some sort of vaguely defined alternative form.

The so called "history" of Jesus, is the history of a miracle worker, and it’s based entirely upon claims of his constant miracles.

That's at best a disingenuous exaggeration. There are many more "mundane" details within the gospels that can be examined. Much of this thread has dealt with that. Have you not been paying any attention?

There's masses of evidence to show why any honest person should be sceptical. I've described it to you in detail dozens of times in the long Jesus thread. How many times do you need to be told?

An "honest" person would realize that it's quite easy to separate out those supernatural elements and examine what's left over.

And no one is saying to not be "skeptical". Of course, be skeptical. Just apply consistent standards when doing so. Something you've failed to do.

That has been explained to you above, as well as explained to you 50 times before in the long Jesus thread. So please read all that again to see why your complaint has no validity.

Do the same to see why your objections are purest bullshit.

Look - the fact that some Roman emperors tried to claim they had the status of Gods and would have a special place in heaven, is in no way a claim that anyone at the time thought those people existed only as supernatural miracle workers. And even if anyone did ever think that, then that view is completely destroyed by the indisputable fact that we have museums literally stuffed full of evidence which shows those Roman rulers definitely did exist as real people ...

You're being absurd. People proclaimed them gods, built temples for them, worshiped them, etc, etc, etc. They were thought of as divine figures as much as any other god figure you'd like to throw out there. Some posthumously and some even during their lifetimes.

Now, either that completely compromises any written source that contains these elements or we can, sensibly, disregard those elements and work with whatever is left over. The point you seem to fail to see is that this physical evidence you keep talking about doesn't mean much of anything without these texts you keep referring to. If we throw out the texts as evidence (which you would be obligated to do) then we have no way of knowing whether these physical objects refer to an historical person or one of their gods. Without the texts to tell us otherwise how do we know that those statues and coins depict an actual person or one of their deities?

The impact and the relevance is perfectly obvious. I’ll explain it again for you (for the 28th time) - we do not bother to investigate other poorly evidenced figures, such as say Robin Hood, because those figures are of absolutely no interest to anyone today ... if you started a thread claiming Robin Hood was a real figure then you would not get many people bothering to reply, because Robin Hood is of absolutely no interest to anyone!

Actually, many people do investigate figures like Robin Hood and do you know what they find? That they aren't as well evidenced as a figure like JC. The location and time frame of what's attributed to JC is much more consistent and emerges in a much shorter time frame than do the stories about Robin Hood.

But the Jesus case is entirely different. Because the claims that Christian religion has made for Jesus, have made Jesus into the most important single figure in all human history

How does this retroactively change the evidence from the past? Answer: it doesn't. You're seemingly allowing your prejudices to guide to.

... he is the basis of theistic belief for millions of devout Christians who support and pay for the organised religion of Christianity, which directly attempts every day to exercise power & influence over national governments and over the national and international laws under which the people of all nations live. None of that is true for figure like Robin Hood or Alexander the Great is it! ... No, it is not! ... they have absolutely Zero influence on anyone ... but the influence of the Jesus stories and the resulting Christian organised religion is of absolutely vast influence on everyone on earth ...

... that’s the difference ... that’s why we are taking a much closer look at Jesus. That's why we are absolutely right to take that much more critical close look at Jesus.

None of which has the slightest bearing on the quality of the evidence we do have.

Stop pissing about. Produce the evidence that shows Jesus was real.

And take it to the long Jesus thread, because it's out of place discussing it all over again here for the 100th time.

Do you have any evidence to show Jesus was real? Yes or No?

double post.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

IanS wrote:

Roman emperors and kings and queens were not primarily known as supernatural Gods. They were known primarily as ordinary human rulers of nations. And the things recorded of them in their vast history are 99.9% records of perfectly ordinary non-miraculous everyday commonplace actions ... such as passing various laws, sitting in judgement with their courtiers and governments, and taking their armies into battles with all sorts of other nations.

Again, this is bullshit. They were also thought of and believed to be gods. If mixing in the supernatural with the mundane is cause for throwing out a source then you should throw out the source regardless of the degree to which it's mixed in. If the supernatural taints the source then it's tainted. How do we know what else this taint extends to? If the source is willing to make up supernatural facts about its subject then why not more mundane facts?

Or, we can just be sensible, and disregard the supernatural attributions and work with whatever is left over regardless of the amount of supernatural mixed in.

You're just being arbitrary here.

Now compare that with Jesus - first there is no physical evidence, not even one microscopic speck dust, Nothing at all. Big fat ZERO.

Is physical evidence required for any figure we wish to discuss?

If so you're going to wipe out a huge amount of ancient history.

Second - in the case of Jesus there is no written so-called “evidence” of anyone at all even mentioning Jesus in his lifetime - all the so-called written “evidence” comes long after Jesus was supposed to have died.

A few decades in current estimations. Better than that for Hannibal.

And that written “evidence” turns out not actually to be evidence of a real Jesus at all, but instead merely evidence of what people who never met Jesus, later said about the stories that had previously been circulated about Jesus by the earliest Christian sources.

An assertion you make without evidence. It's just an assumption on your part.

The later non-biblical writers such as Tacitus and Josephus cannot possibly be evidence for a real Jesus, since as has been explained to you 50 times, amongst other fatal problems, those authors were not even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died.

Again, that's irrelevant. Much of written history is recorded long after the events being reported. You're applying another double standard.

That only leaves the religious accounts. But they are not evidence either, since by their own admission neither Paul nor any of the canonical gospel authors ever met Jesus at all.

Again, irrelevant as above.

All of that has been patiently explained to you, in extensive detail, dozens of times before.

And the abject feebleness, shoddy logic and double standards of your "objections" has been explained to you countless times before.

That is not the point. The point is - we do have that absolute mass of incontestable evidence for most Roman rulers. So they are not in doubt in the same way as Jesus at all ... For whom we have no genuine evidence whatsoever. See the above.

Of course it's the point. It's just inconvenient to you that your double standard is being pointed out. Just because a textual source contains "supernatural" elements doesn't mean we need to throw it out. We just need to be cautious with it and, at the very least, throw out those elements and examine the rest. Which is exactly what has been done.

No one is claiming that we can establish the level of certainty around the historicity of a figure like JC to the same degree that we can a Roman Emperor. That would be ridiculous. It would also be equally ridiculous to expect the same level of evidence to exist for a figure like JC.

No. I'm afraid the supernatural claims are very important here. Because the entire basis of the Christian gospel story of Jesus , was and is, that he is a figure who was a constant miracle worker, and who is in fact THE supernatural Lord God himself in some sort of vaguely defined alternative form.

The so called "history" of Jesus, is the history of a miracle worker, and it’s based entirely upon claims of his constant miracles.

That's at best a disingenuous exaggeration. There are many more "mundane" details within the gospels that can be examined. Much of this thread has dealt with that. Have you not been paying any attention?

There's masses of evidence to show why any honest person should be sceptical. I've described it to you in detail dozens of times in the long Jesus thread. How many times do you need to be told?

An "honest" person would realize that it's quite easy to separate out those supernatural elements and examine what's left over.

And no one is saying to not be "skeptical". Of course, be skeptical. Just apply consistent standards when doing so. Something you've failed to do.

That has been explained to you above, as well as explained to you 50 times before in the long Jesus thread. So please read all that again to see why your complaint has no validity.

Do the same to see why your objections are purest bullshit.

Look - the fact that some Roman emperors tried to claim they had the status of Gods and would have a special place in heaven, is in no way a claim that anyone at the time thought those people existed only as supernatural miracle workers. And even if anyone did ever think that, then that view is completely destroyed by the indisputable fact that we have museums literally stuffed full of evidence which shows those Roman rulers definitely did exist as real people ...

You're being absurd. People proclaimed them gods, built temples for them, worshiped them, etc, etc, etc. They were thought of as divine figures as much as any other god figure you'd like to throw out there. Some posthumously and some even during their lifetimes.

Now, either that completely compromises any written source that contains these elements or we can, sensibly, disregard those elements and work with whatever is left over. The point you seem to fail to see is that this physical evidence you keep talking about doesn't mean much of anything without these texts you keep referring to. If we throw out the texts as evidence (which you would be obligated to do) then we have no way of knowing whether these physical objects refer to an historical person or one of their gods. Without the texts to tell us otherwise how do we know that those statues and coins depict an actual person or one of their deities?

The impact and the relevance is perfectly obvious. I’ll explain it again for you (for the 28th time) - we do not bother to investigate other poorly evidenced figures, such as say Robin Hood, because those figures are of absolutely no interest to anyone today ... if you started a thread claiming Robin Hood was a real figure then you would not get many people bothering to reply, because Robin Hood is of absolutely no interest to anyone!

Actually, many people do investigate figures like Robin Hood and do you know what they find? That they aren't as well evidenced as a figure like JC. The location and time frame of what's attributed to JC is much more consistent and emerges in a much shorter time frame than do the stories about Robin Hood.

But the Jesus case is entirely different. Because the claims that Christian religion has made for Jesus, have made Jesus into the most important single figure in all human history

How does this retroactively change the evidence from the past? Answer: it doesn't. You're seemingly allowing your prejudices to guide to.

... he is the basis of theistic belief for millions of devout Christians who support and pay for the organised religion of Christianity, which directly attempts every day to exercise power & influence over national governments and over the national and international laws under which the people of all nations live. None of that is true for figure like Robin Hood or Alexander the Great is it! ... No, it is not! ... they have absolutely Zero influence on anyone ... but the influence of the Jesus stories and the resulting Christian organised religion is of absolutely vast influence on everyone on earth ...

... that’s the difference ... that’s why we are taking a much closer look at Jesus. That's why we are absolutely right to take that much more critical close look at Jesus.

None of which has the slightest bearing on the quality of the evidence we do have.

Unfortunately, Zeke, all the most sensible argument in the world will not change the fact that responsible SECULAR scholars use a more nuanced definition of what constitutes evidence than mythers ever do. Mythers' view of what constitutes evidence is essentially tied to whatever would constitute evidence for a 21st-century figure, not a 1st-century one. Being that unrealistic, it means that very, very few 1st-century figures can ever logically be viewed as historic at all in mythers' uneducated minds, although only a very few mythers ever concede that. What we have here is not just a difference in opinion, it's a difference in fundamental definitions and in facts. Evidence is no longer evidence in the surreal myther world. How can one engage in addressing any difference in opinion when mythers have constructed an alternate reality?

In any case, the fix is in. The poll right here in this thread gives a whopping 50% to the mythers. That alone tells the whole story. The ignorant anti-academics myther propaganda -- completely of a piece with the anti-academics propaganda coming from creationists -- has had its effect, and the online atheist community has evidently been taken over by the same know-nothing-and-proud-of-it mentality found in creationists. It doesn't matter any more, Zeke, what the most likely and rational conclusions from the sparse evidence is. No doubt the most likely conclusions on this sparse evidence is pretty much what you've stated. But that doesn't matter: Reasonable scholarship and thoughtful conclusions such as yours and much of the SECULAR scholarly community don't count. They don't count any more than telescopes counted when Galileo was stopped. What really counts is what the inquisitors say, and FUCK THE FACTS! We've found our new inquisitors, and they are here.

I can't help wondering what the results of such a poll would have been had it been conducted on the old Dawkins forum. Dawkins can be real proud of what he's done.

Stein

To me, the most profoundly baffling aspect of it is the double standard being applied. If we were talking about some other comparatively minor figure from ancient history with a similar set of evidence in favor of their historicity the same folks arguing so dismissively against the evidence for an historical JC wouldn't be batting an eyelash.

I just don't understand how the current level of belief/importance attached to christianity can in any way change the past and alter the character of the evidence we currently have access to. It's as if they believe in magic.

Stein wrote:The poll right here in this thread gives a whopping 50% to the mythers.

You seem to be punch-drunk. This poll has nothing to do with mythicism.

Stein wrote:That alone tells the whole story.

Yes, you have no idea what's going on. The thread and its poll are about what is being used as if it were evidence by people like you without any regard for what we know about the transmission of the source material. You pretend like the information is inherently good when we know that the transmission process has given us a fraudulent insertion in Josephus, interpolations into christian works, the invention of fraudulent works such as the letters of Paul and Seneca, fantasy infancy gospels and on the honest side, clarifications and scribal errors. Who gains by information in classical sources that legitimizes christianity? Who had the opportunity to put legitimizing information in those classical sources?

The thread deals with the slavish use of those classical sources.

Stein wrote:The ignorant anti-academics myther propaganda -- completely of a piece with the anti-academics propaganda coming from creationists -- has had its effect, and the online atheist community has evidently been taken over by the same know-nothing-and-proud-of-it mentality found in creationists.

I hope getting that bile out has improved your gullet.

Stein wrote:It doesn't matter any more, Zeke, what the most likely and rational conclusions from the sparse evidence is. No doubt the most likely conclusions on this sparse evidence is pretty much what you've stated.

Appeals to the "most likely and rational conclusions from the sparse evidence" are based on your personal feeling. Quantifying the likeliness of anything needs to use a standard that is acceptable to all, not just you and like minded others.

Stein wrote:But that doesn't matter: Reasonable scholarship and thoughtful conclusions such as yours and much of the SECULAR scholarly community don't count.

You don't seem to be too aware of the methodologies of scholarship when dealing with a manipulated past. A scholar must make the effort to uncover the obstacles that impede knowing, such as tendentious impositions of over a millennium of christian influence that obfuscate the hope of historical data.

Stein wrote:They don't count any more than telescopes counted when Galileo was stopped. What really counts is what the inquisitors say, and FUCK THE FACTS! We've found our new inquisitors, and they are here.

You need to stop saying "fuck the facts", which is what you are doing when you say, "I will unquestioningly use christian mediated sources as veracious." Doing history requires--amongst other things--a critical approach to sources.

spin wrote:You don't seem to be too aware of the methodologies of scholarship when dealing with a manipulated past.

Methodologies that have unanimously produced a historical Jesus.

Dang it spin, if you make it this easy, there's jus' no huntin'.

IanS wrote:Stop pissing about. Produce the evidence that shows Jesus was real.

Which we have.

Now stop pissing about and produce the evidence that the evidence for the historical Jesus is not sufficient enough for any scholar and historian to make the claim that the historical Jesus was more likely than a purely mythical one.

If you keep dodging and evading the challenge, then it shows that you are the one lacking the evidence for your position.

And take it to the long Jesus thread, because it's out of place discussing it all over again here for the 100th time.

Then why do you keep discussing it here for the 100th time if you don't think it's right to do so?

Do you have any evidence to show Jesus was real? Yes or No?

We have evidence to show that it was quite likely that Jesus was real. And it's not just Josephus or Tacitus.

You, on the other hand, lack evidence for an MJ. And you show this by evading the challenge.

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:You don't seem to be too aware of the methodologies of scholarship when dealing with a manipulated past.

Methodologies that have unanimously produced a historical Jesus.

Show me an example of any methodology that admits to dealing with a manipulated past regarding the start of christianity.... That's right you can't. You are merely crapping on.

Byron wrote:Dang it spin, if you make it this easy, there's jus' no huntin'.

The fact that you can make a response doesn't mean that you can make sense. (Note, mine is a response regarding the real world. You can make sense in your own private world.)

For me, the most compelling argument for a historical Jesus is the obvious fabrications involved in having the dude born in Bethlehem. If someone was just going to make up the character of Jesus out of whole cloth, why would they not just say "He was born in Bethlehem" and go from there? The only thing that explains this is if there really was some sort of reformist preacher called Joshua who people knew grew up in Nazareth. There are many myths surrounding Jesus, but it seems more likely than not that there was some real figure preaching at that time.

This thread is not, however, about that. It is a thread about how reliable the accounts of non-christian witnesses to Jesus are. Answer: not very. There are, in fact no first-hand accounts of Jesus' life even from Christians.

spin wrote:Show me an example of any methodology that admits to dealing with a manipulated past regarding the start of christianity.... That's right you can't. You are merely crapping on.

E.P. Sanders, who ditched the hunt for sayings and tried to reconstruct HJ around events in his life that could be established beyond reasonable doubt; Maurice Casey, who looked for traces of Aramaic in the Greek; John Dominic Crossan, who looked for strata of evidence; and your old friend, Dale "maximalist" Allison, who took the opposite approach to the one you claimed, and said, like Sanders, that we can't hope to reconstruct authentic Jesus sayings, and searched instead for authentic themes in the gospels.

In short, the whole quest is built around the starting assumption that the gospels are inaccurate records, and looks for ways to compensate for what Sanders called "Christian propaganda".

I mean, the fuck, spin, have you even read these people? The fuck?

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:Show me an example of any methodology that admits to dealing with a manipulated past regarding the start of christianity.... That's right you can't. You are merely crapping on.

E.P. Sanders, who ditched the hunt for sayings and tried to reconstruct HJ around events in his life that could be established beyond reasonable doubt; Maurice Casey, who looked for traces of Aramaic in the Greek; John Dominic Crossan, who looked for strata of evidence; and your old friend, Dale "maximalist" Allison, who took the opposite approach to the one you claimed, and said, like Sanders, that we can't hope to reconstruct authentic Jesus sayings, and searched instead for authentic themes in the gospels.

In short, the whole quest is built around the starting assumption that the gospels are inaccurate records, and looks for ways to compensate for what Sanders called "Christian propaganda".

You misunderstand the notion of "manipulated past". Your facile notion of inaccurate records doesn't cut it. We are dealing with Josephus and Tacitus supposedly bearing witness to Jesus, not the mishmash of developing christian traditions. Josephus has been falsified, a fact that is beyond denial. At least part of the TF is accepted by the vast majority of scholars as being fake. I think those who go for the partial acceptance are simply apologetically arbitrary. Someone has actively set out to corrupt Josephus, as I think happened with Tacitus. The uncritical approach to these sources is the issue, not fellows kidding themselves trying to extract history from the gospels by text massaging.

Byron wrote:I mean, the fuck, spin, have you even read these people? The fuck?

This question and the reaction you have demonstrate the problem of slavish dependence of apologetics. It's no wonder that you consent to the cultural hegemony. You're in bed with it.

spin wrote:You misunderstand the notion of "manipulated past". Your facile notion of inaccurate records doesn't cut it.

So you counter it with ... inaccurate records.

"Someone has actively set out to corrupt Josephus," is a melodramatic way of putting one obvious set of edits. The failure of any Christian to fix Josephus' birth-lengend-busting account of Cyrenius' census counts against anything systematic occurring. A reconstruction that proceeds according to a stated method isn't arbitrary. Your argument seems to have a powerful bad time comprehending this simple fact. I commiserate.

You've done nothing to show that HJ research fails to take proper account of source bias. But at least the hegemony makes a cameo, so it ain't all a bust!

Random Skeptic wrote:

IanS wrote:Stop pissing about. Produce the evidence that shows Jesus was real.

Which we have.

Now stop pissing about and produce the evidence that the evidence for the historical Jesus is not sufficient enough for any scholar and historian to make the claim that the historical Jesus was more likely than a purely mythical one.

If you keep dodging and evading the challenge, then it shows that you are the one lacking the evidence for your position.

And take it to the long Jesus thread, because it's out of place discussing it all over again here for the 100th time.

Then why do you keep discussing it here for the 100th time if you don't think it's right to do so?

Do you have any evidence to show Jesus was real? Yes or No?

We have evidence to show that it was quite likely that Jesus was real. And it's not just Josephus or Tacitus.

You, on the other hand, lack evidence for an MJ. And you show this by evading the challenge.

You have evidence which shows Jesus was a real figure? Excellent ...

.... so post it. Post whatever source you are claiming to provide the evidence. Seriously. Look ...

... there is no physical evidence of Jesus, I think everyone agrees that. So that just leaves you with the written accounts, which are either the religious accounts such as Paul and the Gospels, or else they are the non-biblical accounts such as Tacitus and Josephus ...

... just name whichever of those written sources you believe contains the evidence showing Jesus was a real figure ... you don't need to explain anything about the claimed evidence, just tell us the name of the written source, i.e. either Paul or the Gospels, or Josephus or Tacitus, whichever one you wish ... just name the one (or more) which you claim to contain evidence showing Jesus was real ...

The Gospels ?

or Paul's Letter ?

or Josephus ?

or Tacitus ?


Jst name whichever one you claim contains the evidence of a real Jesus.

Then we can deal directly with that claim, instead of the HJ-people here deliberately going around in the same evasive circles for 800 pages.

Just give the name of your source.

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:You misunderstand the notion of "manipulated past". Your facile notion of inaccurate records doesn't cut it.

So you counter it with ... inaccurate records.

"Someone has actively set out to corrupt Josephus," is a melodramatic way of putting one obvious set of edits. The failure of any Christian to fix Josephus' birth-lengend-busting account of Cyrenius' census counts against anything systematic occurring. A reconstruction that proceeds according to a stated method isn't arbitrary. Your argument seems to have a powerful bad time comprehending this simple fact. I commiserate.

You've done nothing to show that HJ research fails to take proper account of source bias. But at least the hegemony makes a cameo, so it ain't all a bust!

Dead meat won't stand up.

No answer. I am Byron's complete lack of surprise.

spin wrote:
No-one was able to show any reason for doubting Tacitus's evidence that the role of procurator changed with Claudius. Try and find any examples. Read through it all. Consult all the scholars in the field. Do whatever you can to show that Tacitus was wrong in his evidence that procurators gained magisterial powers from Claudius, allowing them to administer provinces.

No one was trying to show this was wrong as far as I recall. What this means is that you have one piece of evidence for your idea.
We all know that Tacitus describes this change and that it makes his wording look possibly strange. The problem for your hypothesis is rather, the many other reasons against it, discussed previously, which made your hyothesis very unlikely, and certainly not the most rational

Nicko wrote:Guys, the point that Ian S is making is that we don't know what Tactius actually wrote. We do not know that we have what Tactius actually wrote.

Well as far as I could see, he attempted to make the point that Tacitus relied on christain reports. He did this by quoting a writer who had written ..
" Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports "

The problem I indicated is that we have no evidence that Tacitus drew on "christian reports" . We dont know where he got his information. In other words the assertion that Tacitus drew on christian reports cannot be supported by evidence and needs to be rejetced by anyone basing their beliefs on evidence.

We only have copies of copies - not originals - created by several generations of people with known biases and vested interests. This is far from what is regarded as a "primary source" for historians.

As far as ancient history goes, Tacitus or Josephus is a primary source.