Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment”.
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith.
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – ***which they also fail to identify***.
Whether the documents were official documents or just some authors who wrote about what they had witnessed still shows Tacitus researched what he wrote about.
Well of course he 'researched' it. Of course he had access to official documents; he was an Imperial Roman historian for goodness sake. Your problem is that you cannot cite what documents he researched in order to show that those documents contain official 100 year records of the execution of a ragged-arsed, wandering rabbi. As I keep telling you, it is unlikely that the Roman archives were interested in recording the death of non Roman wandering trouble makers AT ALL let alone keep them for 100 years.
Quote:
Everything else he wrote about in the passages in question are historical events but when it comes to the Christ passage all of a sudden it's just hearsay.
Yes. That's because a fire that destroyed a huge area of Rome is worthy of note historically. Wandering Jewish preachers are not
Quote:
Sorry don't buy it.
I didn't expect you too but that is your decision.
Quote:
The simplest answer is the Christ passage was in the documents as everything else in the passage was historical.
That's for you to show if that is the claim you are selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I did support the claim using your guys own method of Occam's Razor. Everything in the passages are historical events, thus the simplest answer is so to is the Christ passage.
Sorry. that is a miserable fail mate. As it is likely that non-Roman citizens were not entitled to a trail; as it is likely that records were not kept for the execution of ragged-arsed non Roman trouble makers; as it is likely that, IF records were kept, they wouldn't have been kept for 100 years; as it is known that IF any official records existed, they would not have referred to 'Christ' and as we know that Tacitus was not averse to recording thing as 'fact' that just weren't true, then the simplest answer is that he got THAT snippet of info about 'Christ' from non official sources like rumour or hearsay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Not disclosing ones source does not do away with the source. And we know Tacitus checked his sources here as he says so himself.
He says nothing of the sort! He said that two other authors had attested to the fire of Rome. All that is saying is that he was aware that other authors noted the fire. I have no argument against him having checked his sources to get info on the fire but I see nothing in your post where he says himself that he checked his sources. Please point out where Tacitus is saying that he checked his sources. Your problem remains. If you are saying that the official Roman documents that he looked at made reference to the execution of a Jewish nobody, then you have to show that, not just claim it, especially when you are claiming that words like 'Christ' were used when we know that it is unlikely that any Roman documents would have used the word 'Christ'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Hearsay is not the simplest answer Raf. Those who believe it to be hearsay have to show why everything else Tacitus records in the passage is historical, but the Christ passage is not. That is why the BOP lies with you guys. Occam's Razor does not fit with what you are saying.
No. You are simply trying to move the BoP away from where it lies...with you. Forone thing, 'Beliefs' bear no BoP. But YOU are making a positive claim of truth that the Christ passage WAS in the documents that Tacitus looked at. Then YOU show that. It is not my BoP to prove you wrong. Hell man! You can't even show that there was a document never mind what it said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Huh? That does not compute . Think about it Raf. If I wrote what I witnessed at the time and explained the reasoning behind what I had written to explain the Christian movement I would most definitely use the title Christ to show where the name Christian came from. Same goes with the documents Tacitus used.
Well it should compute if you thought about it for a moment. Your argument is that Tacitus got his 'Christ' info from an official Roman document recording the fire of Rome. IF such a document existed it is extremely unlikely to have used the word 'Christ'. The fact that Tacitus used the word 'Christ' shows us that Tacitus was unlikely quoting any official document (which wouldn't have used the word) but getting it from somewhere else and the simplest answer is that he is likely to have got it from rumour or hearsay. My best answer would be that he is likely to have got it from Christian tradition that was circulating in Rome in his time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The whole reason people have come to the conclusion that it was just hearsay is because they did not know that Tacitus, in referring to the passages in question, actually researched what he wrote and if he did not research what he wrote then Occam's Razor says it must have been hearsay.
Well I think that the NT scholars and other historians that are under the impression that Tacitus is giving us hearsay, rumour or Christian tradition, have enough brain cells to work out that historians research information. It's for you to show that the 'Christ' info was included in the documents researched.
Quote:
However I have shown you proof that Tacitus did indeed research what he wrote,....
You haven't showed that but it is certain that he did, as all historians do. What you haven't shown is that the 'Christ' passage is taken from the official official documents that he likely looked at. That you cannot do unless you can cite the documents researched so that they can be checked. Perhaps you can contact the Roman Archives and get a copy of such a document - but until you do, I'm afraid you are left with wishful thinking.
Quote:
thus Occam's Razor, because everything else he wrote about in the passage is historical, says the simplest answer is the Christ passage was also in the documents.
So then, by that logic. When Tacitus was writing about Boadicea and recording the historical events of her life, the things he recorded her as saying (which TRANS has already shown are not true) really ARE true ... because the rest of it is historical...right?
Wonder where TRANS is?? It's not like him to go AWOL.
Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment”.
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith.
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – ***which they also fail to identify***.
Anyone care to dispute any of this with credible verifiable evidence? I would love to hear it!
No you wouldn't. You have circumscribed the "credible, verifiable, evidence" to exclude those currently used for religious purposes including the Apocrypha. Your reason for exclusion is bogus and purely a matter of preference.
No you wouldn't. You have circumscribed the "credible, verifiable, evidence" to exclude those currently used for religious purposes including the Apocrypha. Your reason for exclusion is bogus and purely a matter of preference.
You mean that Matadora has excluded biased religious material ...and rightly so.
You don't speak for me or represent me in any way shape or form. Who do you think you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have circumscribed the "credible, verifiable, evidence" to exclude those currently used for religious purposes including the Apocrypha. Your reason for exclusion is bogus and purely a matter of preference.
LOL Apocrypha? You mean biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture? Writings or reports not considered genuine? Is that what you mean?
The only preference I have is for truth.
Again I am asking for credible verifiable evidence to dispute anything written in the 3 links I posted. If you have none to present then why are you responding?
Well of course he 'researched' it. Of course he had access to official documents; he was an Imperial Roman historian for goodness sake. Your problem is that you cannot cite what documents he researched in order to show that those documents contain official 100 year records of the execution of a ragged-arsed, wandering rabbi. As I keep telling you, it is unlikely that the Roman archives were interested in recording the death of non Roman wandering trouble makers AT ALL let alone keep them for 100 years.
Yes. That's because a fire that destroyed a huge area of Rome is worthy of note historically. Wandering Jewish preachers are not
I didn't expect you too but that is your decision.
That's for you to show if that is the claim you are selling.
Sorry. that is a miserable fail mate. As it is likely that non-Roman citizens were not entitled to a trail; as it is likely that records were not kept for the execution of ragged-arsed non Roman trouble makers; as it is likely that, IF records were kept, they wouldn't have been kept for 100 years; as it is known that IF any official records existed, they would not have referred to 'Christ' and as we know that Tacitus was not averse to recording thing as 'fact' that just weren't true, then the simplest answer is that he got THAT snippet of info about 'Christ' from non official sources like rumour or hearsay.
He says nothing of the sort! He said that two other authors had attested to the fire of Rome. All that is saying is that he was aware that other authors noted the fire. I have no argument against him having checked his sources to get info on the fire but I see nothing in your post where he says himself that he checked his sources. Please point out where Tacitus is saying that he checked his sources. Your problem remains. If you are saying that the official Roman documents that he looked at made reference to the execution of a Jewish nobody, then you have to show that, not just claim it, especially when you are claiming that words like 'Christ' were used when we know that it is unlikely that any Roman documents would have used the word 'Christ'.
No. You are simply trying to move the BoP away from where it lies...with you. Forone thing, 'Beliefs' bear no BoP. But YOU are making a positive claim of truth that the Christ passage WAS in the documents that Tacitus looked at. Then YOU show that. It is not my BoP to prove you wrong. Hell man! You can't even show that there was a document never mind what it said.
Well it should compute if you thought about it for a moment. Your argument is that Tacitus got his 'Christ' info from an official Roman document recording the fire of Rome. IF such a document existed it is extremely unlikely to have used the word 'Christ'. The fact that Tacitus used the word 'Christ' shows us that Tacitus was unlikely quoting any official document (which wouldn't have used the word) but getting it from somewhere else and the simplest answer is that he is likely to have got it from rumour or hearsay. My best answer would be that he is likely to have got it from Christian tradition that was circulating in Rome in his time.
Well I think that the NT scholars and other historians that are under the impression that Tacitus is giving us hearsay, rumour or Christian tradition, have enough brain cells to work out that historians research information. It's for you to show that the 'Christ' info was included in the documents researched.
You haven't showed that but it is certain that he did, as all historians do. What you haven't shown is that the 'Christ' passage is taken from the official official documents that he likely looked at. That you cannot do unless you can cite the documents researched so that they can be checked. Perhaps you can contact the Roman Archives and get a copy of such a document - but until you do, I'm afraid you are left with wishful thinking.
So then, by that logic. When Tacitus was writing about Boadicea and recording the historical events of her life, the things he recorded her as saying (which TRANS has already shown are not true) really ARE true ... because the rest of it is historical...right?
Wonder where TRANS is?? It's not like him to go AWOL.
Raf you seem to be missing the point. I have not said it was fact, I used Occam's Razor to show it is the simplest answer. As everything else in the passages is proven historical then so to the Christ passage.
And I find it funny that the BOP is NEVER with the naysayers but always with the Christian. That's just taking the easy way out because one cannot defend their own bias.
I showed via Occam's Razor the Christ passage is the simplest answer.
The balls in your court. defend your position, that it is not there with historical evidence or documentation showing otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
never noticed the arrow thing before, thanks for pointing it out
