|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 13:42:38 GMT -4
Does not exist.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 13:48:24 GMT -4
I think what you actually mean is "Extra-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus THAT I WILL ACCEPT" does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 13:54:52 GMT -4
So you are saying that I have unreasonably high standards for evidence. You've said that many times. And yet you are the one who would accept people sitting in a church today as evidence that Jesus existed. Who is being unreasonable?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 13:56:29 GMT -4
What evidence would you accept?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:15:56 GMT -4
You keep making this about evidence I would accept -- as if I have been rejecting perfectly good evidence. I have not, as no "perfectly good evidence" has been offered.
So let me throw it back to you. What evidence would you accept?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 14:21:56 GMT -4
I already believe Jesus was a historical personage, so my standards of evidence on this subject are irrelevent.
My claim is that you have purposefully made your standards of evidence impossible to reach concerning this particular subject. The fact that you refuse to provide any idea of what you would accept is simply a way to hide what your standards actually are.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:33:47 GMT -4
Okay, show me where I have purposefully made my standards unreachable. Show me. Stop just repeating it. Show me.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:41:19 GMT -4
Here is what I wrote:
Josephus (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100) wrote the "Testimonium Flavianum," which goes something like this: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.
Looks like pretty good evidence, right? Except:
1. Josephus was a Jew and it is highly unlikely that he would name the Messiah and then just drop the subject. 2. The passage is placed awkwardly in the text, in that it comes in the middle of a section of "sad calamities" that happened to the Jews. 3. Christian apologists who were aware of the works of Josephus do not begin to quote this passage until hundreds of years later. 4. If, in the slim chance that the passage actually was in his works, Josephus can only be relating something that was told to him by some other unknown person. This was written around 90 CE.
This passage is likely a forgery. We have good reason to doubt the authenticity of the "evidence" claimed within the works of Josephus.
Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117) wrote this: "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. 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 Judaea, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
(There are several different versions of this passage, with somewhat different language.)
Not as good as Josephus at first glance, but pretty good -- right? Except:
1. Augustine of Hippo, Eusebius, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus andTertullian, do not refer to Tacitus on the topic of the persecution of Christian by Nero. 2. Pontius Pilate was not a "procurator." But most importantly: 3. Tacitus was writing in 115 CE. It is not disputed that at this time there were Christians who followed a Christ. This can only be considered as evidence that there were Christians, not that Jesus was a real person. To argue otherwise would be to claim that any deity who has followers is therefore real.
Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140) wrote this: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Emperor Claudius) expelled them from Rome."
Well, hmm. Just reading it, that doesn't seem like great evidence. And it's not:
1. "Chrestus" is an actual name. Christians want it to be a misspelling of "Christus," but it appears to be used as a name here. 2. The name "Jesus" is not used here, so the passage can't prove anything about whether Jesus was an actual person. 3. This was written around 120 CE. It is not disputed that at this time there were Christians who followed a Christ. This can only be considered as evidence that there were Christians, not that Jesus was a real person. To argue otherwise would be to claim that any deity who has followers is therefore real.
Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c. 113) wrote this: "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
and
"They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up."
Again, there are a few different versions of this, but they do not differ significantly for our purposes.
1. No reference to a person called Jesus. 2. This was written around 100 CE. It is not disputed that at this time there were Christians who followed a Christ. This can only be considered as evidence that there were Christians, not that Jesus was a real person. To argue otherwise would be to claim that any deity who has followers is therefore real.
The writings of Julius Africanus and Origen come so long after the supposed events that I am not going to go into them, unless you require it of me.
So there is your evidence outside of the Bible. If you accept this as evidence of the existence of Jesus, then I argue that you must also accept that any deity who ever had followers was also real.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 14:43:01 GMT -4
I can't. You won't admit what your standards are in order to allow someone else to make a determination if they are reasonable or not. I can therefore only theorize as to what they actually are, and from your refusal to admit the existence of other historical figures I can only theorize that they are pretty high.
So I could spend all day trying to hit an invisible target, or you could act like you actually want to find evidence by saying what you would consider acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:46:47 GMT -4
Okay, so half a dozen plus one times I've told you that if you want to claim that the evidence for Alexander is the same as it is for Jesus, then it is up to you to prove that claim. To make the claim and then say it is up to me is just silly. If you want it to be something you can use as a prop, then it is your responsibility to make it into a prop. Just making the claim does not make it so.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2008 14:47:47 GMT -4
So I could spend all day trying to hit an invisible target, or you could act like you actually want to find evidence by saying what you would consider acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:47:57 GMT -4
And show me in post #7 where I was being unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 14:52:59 GMT -4
So I could spend all day trying to hit an invisible target, or you could act like you actually want to find evidence by saying what you would consider acceptable. Evidence is evidence, Jason. It is not based on my personal beliefs or rules that I am making up. Either a thing shows the existence of Jesus or it does not. Making some horse-hockey case about what I might find acceptable is again to pretend that I am being unreasonable. If you want to claim I'm being unreasonable, then bring it on. Show me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 8, 2008 15:26:52 GMT -4
I can tell this thread going to go real good... ;D
Okay, enoughs enough. This was already argued over in the other thread. Both of you know that Al has already wib this debate, so lets all just congratulate him. Congratulations Al !
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 8, 2008 15:29:17 GMT -4
I can tell this thread going to go real good... ;D Okay, enoughs enough. This was already argued over in the other thread. We are now arguing about me being unreasonable. So it's a new argument.
|
|