Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 08:07 PM)madog Wrote:
(Yesterday, 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:
(Yesterday, 07:38 PM)madog Wrote: An argument of itself is not a fact  ... go back to school  Dance  ROFL2  Dance

Again, it's all about the best argument to establish the greater probability.

And that's what you keep denying, and throwing down red herrings by trying to conflate that argument with a non sequitur.

You're a fraud.

Your argument that because it can't be shown that an unknown source was not Roman, therefore the source "MUST BE ROMAN" is the epitome of the fallacy "Argument from Ignorance"  ....

Quote:Argument from Ignorance

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

But this is above you pay pocket money grade  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

And this is you pulling at straws, since the context of the evidence is that he was sourcing the works of previous authors who wrote about the history of Nero. Since there is absolutely no evidence of any other culture writing about the Great Fires of Rome, and Tacitus shows us ONLY Roman sources throughout his work, then your argument is a joke. It's a weak and desperate attempt to cast doubt at best. But it doesn't work.

Occam's Razor says the sources were Roman. Go ahead, try it.

Or do you have the balls, fraud?

ROFL2
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:
(Yesterday, 08:08 PM)madog Wrote:
(Yesterday, 05:14 PM)madog Wrote: So you actually believe that the Jesus from the bible has been established as an unquestionable "FACT"?

Does this question frighten you?

Why would it frighten me? 

And the answer is, no I do not.

Then why do you accuse other members of "denialism"?  ...  I did ask you if you understood the term  ... 

You do realize by denying its a fact makes you a denialist (if it were a fact)?

 .... and if its not a fact you are a dickhead to call others denialists  ...  Dance  ROFL2  Dance
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:
(Yesterday, 08:07 PM)madog Wrote:
(Yesterday, 07:54 PM)Free Wrote: Again, it's all about the best argument to establish the greater probability.

And that's what you keep denying, and throwing down red herrings by trying to conflate that argument with a non sequitur.

You're a fraud.

Your argument that because it can't be shown that an unknown source was not Roman, therefore the source "MUST BE ROMAN" is the epitome of the fallacy "Argument from Ignorance"  ....

Quote:Argument from Ignorance

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

But this is above you pay pocket money grade  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

And this is you pulling at straws, since the context of the evidence is that he was sourcing the works of previous authors who wrote about the history of Nero. Since there is absolutely no evidence of any other culture writing about the Great Fires of Rome, and Tacitus shows us ONLY Roman sources throughout his work, then your argument is a joke. It's a weak and desperate attempt to cast doubt at best. But it doesn't work.

Occam's Razor says the sources were Roman. Go ahead, try it.

Or do you have the balls, fraud?

ROFL2

You are such a sad man  .... you don't understand logic so you pontificate ...

What you can't seem to grasp ... the source material for Tacitus using the term "Chrestians" is presently unknown (among honest historians/theists)  ... THAT IS THE FACT  ...

I don't deny it could be Roman  ... Christian ... Jewish  ... the Gospels ... an interpolation ... etc  ...

You deny it could be ... Christian ... Jewish  ... the Gospels ... an interpolation ... etc  ...

Who  is the denialist you dunce  ....  Dance   ROFL2   Dance
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 09:25 PM)madog Wrote:
(Yesterday, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:
(Yesterday, 08:07 PM)madog Wrote: Your argument that because it can't be shown that an unknown source was not Roman, therefore the source "MUST BE ROMAN" is the epitome of the fallacy "Argument from Ignorance"  ....


But this is above you pay pocket money grade  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

And this is you pulling at straws, since the context of the evidence is that he was sourcing the works of previous authors who wrote about the history of Nero. Since there is absolutely no evidence of any other culture writing about the Great Fires of Rome, and Tacitus shows us ONLY Roman sources throughout his work, then your argument is a joke. It's a weak and desperate attempt to cast doubt at best. But it doesn't work.

Occam's Razor says the sources were Roman. Go ahead, try it.

Or do you have the balls, fraud?

ROFL2

You are such a sad man  .... you don't understand logic so you pontificate ...

What you can't seem to grasp ... the source material for Tacitus using the term "Chrestians" is presently unknown (among honest historians/theists)  ... THAT IS THE FACT  ...

Yes ... but that's not my argument, is it?

Quote:I don't deny it could be Roman  ... Christian ... Jewish  ... the Gospels ... an interpolation ... etc  ...

You deny it could be ... Christian ... Jewish  ... the Gospels ... an interpolation ... etc  ...

That's not my argument either.

Quote:Who  is the denialist you dunce  ....  Dance   ROFL2   Dance

You obviously, since after 20 some pages, despite me stating what my argument actually is ad nauseam, you still don't know what my argument is.

Unbelievable.

Dude, ya gotta face it. You're fucking stupid.

ROFL2
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 09:22 PM)madog Wrote:
(Yesterday, 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:
(Yesterday, 08:08 PM)madog Wrote: Does this question frighten you?

Why would it frighten me? 

And the answer is, no I do not.

Then why do you accuse other members of "denialism"?  ...  I did ask you if you understood the term  ...

Because after me stating what my argument is so often I lost count, you STILL don't have a fucking clue what I'm taking about.

ROFL2

Here go back to my post on Page 9 and read what my argument actually is. Read ... it .... slowwwwwwly. 

Hint: Look for the word "Probably."

The argument was an Inductive Probability argument.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
And if you studied up on inductive reasoning, you would know the best possible conclusion to the argument.

Argument Premise: Tacitus demonstrates that he constantly uses only Roman sources on his history of Nero, Annals in general, and of which includes his mentioning of Christ and the Chrestians. There is no evidence within Annals that he used Christian sources for anything. He also states that he used the consensus of previous Roman historians as he writes his history.

Conclusion 1: Tacitus probably used Christian sources for his mentioning of Christ and the Chrestians.

Conclusion 2: Tacitus probably used Roman sources for his mentioning of Christ and the Chrestians.

Pick one, smart guy. And I'm betting you will pick Conclusion 1 because that's just how fucking stupid you actually are. Either that or ... or ... let the cherry picking begin! Let's see if you will create another premise by excluding all the best evidence which would result in rendering your premise as a cherry picking logical fallacy!



Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(9 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?

 Not a conclusionI would draw.  I'm also fairly sure Pilate's position is verified by other sources.  I'll try to find them if you want. Not that  it's all that relevant.  There are no first  person accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. Mentions  of Christians, and a passing reference to their leader (not by name) by say Tacitus , Josephus and Suetonius are  hearsay..

At this point there is not even a consensus of the historicity of Jesus. 

My position;  it's likely , that a wondering rabbi  called something like Yeshua/Yoshua  bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea .There were many such in Judea at that time. That he founded a small JEWISH sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified  .Not unusual; the Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation of Judea. 

 That the  New Testament  is the mythology Of Christianity. That it bears little if any resemblance  to  a poor, tragic little  rabbi, crucified by the Romans.
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Free
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(8 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(9 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?

 Not a conclusionI would draw.  I'm also fairly sure Pilate's position is verified by other sources.  I'll try to find them if you want. Not that  it's all that relevant.  There are no first  person accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. Mentions  of Christians, and a passing reference to their leader (not by name) by say Tacitus , Josephus and Suetonius are  hearsay..

At this point there is not even a consensus of the historicity of Jesus. 

My position;  it's likely , that a wondering rabbi  called something like Yeshua/Yoshua  bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea .There were many such in Judea at that time. That he founded a small JEWISH sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified  .Not unusual; the Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation of Judea. 

 That the  New Testament  is the mythology Of Christianity. That it bears little if any resemblance  to  a poor, tragic little  rabbi, crucified by the Romans.

And some idiots in this discussion would wrongly think I would have a problem with your conclusion. I don't. It's rational, reasonable, and a wholly acceptable theory.

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • grympy
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(8 hours ago)Free Wrote:
(8 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(9 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?

 Not a conclusionI would draw.  I'm also fairly sure Pilate's position is verified by other sources.  I'll try to find them if you want. Not that  it's all that relevant.  There are no first  person accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. Mentions  of Christians, and a passing reference to their leader (not by name) by say Tacitus , Josephus and Suetonius are  hearsay..

At this point there is not even a consensus of the historicity of Jesus. 

My position;  it's likely , that a wondering rabbi  called something like Yeshua/Yoshua  bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea .There were many such in Judea at that time. That he founded a small JEWISH sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified  .Not unusual; the Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation of Judea. 

 That the  New Testament  is the mythology Of Christianity. That it bears little if any resemblance  to  a poor, tragic little  rabbi, crucified by the Romans.

And some idiots in this discussion would wrongly think I would have a problem with your conclusion. I don't. It's rational, reasonable, and a wholly acceptable theory.

Thumbs Up
not a conclusion you would draw?
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(Yesterday, 03:53 PM)Free Wrote: Let me explain something to you. I am 100% atheist. I was born this way.

For you to suggest even the 'possibility' of anything supernatural as existing, you absolutely require evidence that can be peer reviewed and tested that could even provide any semblance of a possibility.

Throwing the phrase of "it's possible" around loosely does not work for a rational mind that critically analyses data using reason and research. Just because you think the existence of anything supernatural is possible does, by no means, indicate any such possibility whatsoever.

Show me scientific evidence that demonstrates even the possibility of something in a supernatural state and then we can talk.

Sorry for the mistaken read. No matter. As I said, I'm not here to convert anyone or prove anything. Just to put some food for thought out there. 
You, or anyone for that matter can read it, or not. Make light of it, or dismiss it altogether. It really doesn't matter to me. I've been on the anti's forums 
for years, and there is nothing I haven't encountered, or dealt with. I used to argue points. I don't waste the muscle movement these days. Nothing to 
gain...for me anyway.

Example one, for your consideration: Miracles of the Eucharist

I'm sure you've heard of them, especially if you were RC. If not, they are easy to find on the net. There is plenty of third party validation too. Even conversions.

Would like to hear any civil responses, from positions of knowledge or experience?  

Let us [all] save the real ugly stuff for the bars & locker rooms, shall we? I've not seen many Xtians besides the perennial DRich to kick around! I sure haven't seen any welcome mats out front. And it's certainly chilly in here. Unless the only interest is incestuous circle jerks? Then it will eventually be like the ghost town over at a.org. And that's no fun. Or is it?
Quis ut Deus?
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
well @grympy, I am curious your response.
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(7 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: well @grympy, I am curious your response.

I've already answered that question as best I can.. Did you happen to read the bit where I asserted the question is irrelevant ,and why?

If that's not enough, I'm afraid you will waiting some time for a further answer
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(7 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(7 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: well @grympy, I am curious your response.

Regarding what ?  

Please be aware that asking a question doesn't mean it will necessarily be answered   (or in fact   that I'm able to)   Consider
I wanted some clarification on your comment "Not a conclusionI would draw"
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(9 hours ago)Free Wrote:   
you still don't know what my argument is.

The fact that you used the term "denialist" right from the beginning and you are still using the term shows you either don't understand the term or you consider your argument FACT  .... (I'm not explaining again, go to fucking school)

Your premise has always been that because Tacitus used the term "Chrestians" the source could not have been Christians  .... 

1) That argument changed when you realized most of the general population, including the Christian Gospels used that term, while no known Roman, other than Tacitus, did  .....

2) Some evidence you have offered, that Tacitus used Roman sources, has not been disputed  ... Yes the material in question may have been, or included Roman sources.

However I have disputed your argument that because Tacitus never credits a non-roman source, that by default Tacitus never used a non-Roman source ....

Your premise is clearly fallacious, you have the "burden of proof" to show Tacitus couldn't have received the material in question from a non-roman source .... (I'm not explaining again, go to fucking school)
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(7 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote:
(7 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(7 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: well @grympy, I am curious your response.

Regarding what ?  

Please be aware that asking a question doesn't mean it will necessarily be answered   (or in fact   that I'm able to)   Consider
I wanted some clarification on your comment "Not a conclusionI would draw"


Umm,I answered that question ,as best I can .  Sorry if I was unclear.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(8 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(9 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?

 Not a conclusionI would draw.  I'm also fairly sure Pilate's position is verified by other sources.  I'll try to find them if you want. Not that  it's all that relevant.  There are no first  person accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. Mentions  of Christians, and a passing reference to their leader (not by name) by say Tacitus , Josephus and Suetonius are  hearsay..

At this point there is not even a consensus of the historicity of Jesus. 

My position;  it's likely , that a wondering rabbi  called something like Yeshua/Yoshua  bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea .There were many such in Judea at that time. That he founded a small JEWISH sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified  .Not unusual; the Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation of Judea. 

 That the  New Testament  is the mythology Of Christianity. That it bears little if any resemblance  to  a poor, tragic little  rabbi, crucified by the Romans.
well...
um... just to clarify what I was asking for.
you said you'd try to find sources of Pilate's position.
Tacitus identified him as procurator, @Free says without a doubt that Tacitus only used Roman sources.
I am asking for more information, if you in fact looked into Pilate do tell.
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(7 hours ago)ronedee Wrote:
(01-01-1970, 12:00 AM)Free Wrote: Show me scientific evidence that demonstrates even the possibility of something in a supernatural state and then we can talk.

Example one, for your consideration: Miracles of the Eucharist

I'm sure you've heard of them, especially if you were RC. If not, they are easy to find on the net. There is plenty of third party validation too. Even conversions.


Find any turnips yet or is the ground too tough?

As for so many atheists, the supernatural has always been a nonstarter for me.  Doesn't mean I have a knock out argument against it, just what sounds like me expressing what seems so obvious to me.  But we both know that isn't persuasive.


(7 hours ago)ronedee dateline='1566787457' Wrote: Would like to hear any civil responses, from positions of knowledge or experience?

Well I'm glad you're here and I speak a little civil.  Hopefully you'll find a few characters around here who give you something to think about without charging your self respect in the bargain.

I think there is far more discussion of politics here than religion/nonreligion.  We have another member here who is off having her first baby any day now who goes by "Catholic_Lady".  She comes and goes.  Hitting your head against the wall can be a daunting task, especially for Catholics who aren't all that into apologetics (with a few notable exceptions I've seen come through).  But very few I know of here are all that interested in religion, though a few still enjoy giving it a whack or a poke once in a while.


(7 hours ago)ronedee dateline='1566787457' Wrote: I sure haven't seen any welcome mats out front.

Here you go: [Image: 2226740148_d867fcb29f.jpg]odcottage/]modern cottage[/url], on Flickr


(7 hours ago)ronedee dateline='1566787457' Wrote: And it's certainly chilly in here. Unless the only interest is incestuous circle jerks? Then it will eventually be like the ghost town over at a.org. And that's no fun. Or is it?

I suppose it wouldn't be much fun to start an intro thread if you're not feeling any love.  I wonder if you could talk a little about what you get out such discussion since I know you aren't looking for converts.  I know why I like talking religion with believers.  I wonder what interests you, though I'm glad you aren't someone who just can't get over the fact that other people believe other things.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • ronedee
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(7 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote:
(8 hours ago)grympy Wrote:
(9 hours ago)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: so not only was Tacitus wrong when he identifies Pontius Pilate as procurator the Roman sources he used were also wrong.
awfully convenient, do cha' think?

 Not a conclusionI would draw.  I'm also fairly sure Pilate's position is verified by other sources.  I'll try to find them if you want. Not that  it's all that relevant.  There are no first  person accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. Mentions  of Christians, and a passing reference to their leader (not by name) by say Tacitus , Josephus and Suetonius are  hearsay..

At this point there is not even a consensus of the historicity of Jesus. 

My position;  it's likely , that a wondering rabbi  called something like Yeshua/Yoshua  bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea .There were many such in Judea at that time. That he founded a small JEWISH sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified  .Not unusual; the Romans crucified thousands of Jews during their occupation of Judea. 

 That the  New Testament  is the mythology Of Christianity. That it bears little if any resemblance  to  a poor, tragic little  rabbi, crucified by the Romans.
well...
um... just to clarify what I was asking for.
you said you'd try to find sources of Pilate's position.
Tacitus identified him as procurator, @Free says without a doubt that Tacitus only used Roman sources.
I am asking for more information, if you in fact looked into Pilate do tell.


Oh, misunderstanding . I'll see what  I can find. I don't suppose  you would  accept that splendid    1959 documentary "Ben Hur"?   Big Grin

Well that's about what they said about it at school. The whole school went to see it. Also The Ten Commandments.  Apparently aka as "The Ten  Suggestions " by many Christians,  when referring to one's own behaviour.
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(6 hours ago)Mark Wrote: I suppose it wouldn't be much fun to start an intro thread if you're not feeling any love.  I wonder if you could talk a little about what you get out such discussion since I know you aren't looking for converts.  I know why I like talking religion with believers.  I wonder what interests you, though I'm glad you aren't someone who just can't get over the fact that other people believe other things.

Thank God, or is it Gawd around here these days? Well... anyway I'm very glad to see you here! Maybe you will add some life to this dull party! WTF happened here? It's like a barren ghost town/cemetery! When "mini" is the only entertainment  in an establishment you know there's systemic problems.

BTW.... thanks for the Welcome mat! I'll "try" not to get any muck on it! Wink
Quis ut Deus?
Reply

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
OK

Ten minutes later

Below is the best I can do from a brief search. However, I'm not happy . The evidence cited below is from 1961. I thought there would be a few decent ancient sources. Seems I was wrong. Apologies.

I need to talk with a decent historian. (no offence )

That there is little evidence of Pontius Pilate suggests to me what a backwater Judea was in the first century ce . There was little if any reason for anyone of note to record anything about the place . Exceptions may have been about the treasure the Romans looted from the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 ce. It is claimed part of the gold from temple paid for the construction of the Coliseum . Also possibly about the seige of Masada 73-4 ce. The trial and execution of a wandering rabbi would have been of little import in Jerusalem, none outside of Judea. seemed to have nothing to do with him. Even his aqueduct - a project that got him into plenty of trouble at the time - appeared to have crumbled away.

In the summer of 1961, however, Italian archaeologists found a piece of limestone, 82cm wide by 68cm high, in the ruins of a sports stadium in Caesarea, beside the sea. The stadium had not been there in Pilate's time; he had yelled at his gladiators in another place. But the stone bore his name, and much else besides.

Because it is the only artefact we have - the only proof of him, and also the only object we can be sure he looked at and thought about - even the tiniest aspects of it have a huge importance. Until there are more discoveries, this is as close as we are going to get.

So we have the name set in stone, Pontius Pilate. It would have been nice to have the praenomen too, Lucius or Publius or Quintus; although it did not mean much to Romans, it somehow makes them more complete to us. But never mind. We also have his title, Praefectus Judaeae. This is important, and not just because it settles the debate about what he called himself."


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)