(September 22, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Maybe; but you're trying to jump the gun by presupposing he has a position for which to argue. Instead of, you know, first asking if he has one and then inviting him to argue for it.

I'll try that approach.

What about you, Stimbo?

Do you have a question about theism or Catholicism that you'd like to ask?

Not especially. But thanks for asking.

(September 22, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: See, that's the problem with the fairy tale.  There are no original sources from the time period that it supposedly happened.  All of the sources are dated from around 700 AD to even the 1600s or later.  Therefore, all of the sources that are supposed to support the fairy tale are pure BS.  The whole thing is a big lie.

In fairness, though our oldest copy of Tacitus dates from the 11th century, and was copied by a Christian monk, there doesn't seem to be any signs of obvious tampering, as with the Josephus accounts. The Latin from Tacitus is correct second century Roman usage, and he doesn't appear to suddenly break from his narrative in tone, so if there's anything not from the original in there, it was very cleverly inserted. I typically take the Tacitus at face value (not that it's worth much in terms of this discussion, other than proving that there were Roman Christians in Nero's time and they thought their Annointed One was killed by Pilate).

Josephus, on the other hand, was so heavily added to and edited by later Christian copyists/defrauders that it's hard to even tell how much to throw out. Some of it is obvious, though. Part of the way we know the interpolated sections of Josephus are frauds are 1) they use Latin in a way the late first-Century Romans did not, and 2) they speak of Jesus in a way that Josephus absolutely would not... the "if it be lawful to call him a man" is my personal favorite bit of fan fiction in all of literature.

(September 18, 2015 at 9:56 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: It's so cute that he capitalizes it, as though it's a real thing.

I deliberately refuse to capitalize any of that shit.... fuck jesus and all his followers.

Quote:Ehrman is an atheist.

Ehrman calls himself an agnostic.

(September 22, 2015 at 10:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Ehrman is an atheist.

Ehrman calls himself an agnostic.

And yet his own claim is that he does not believe in gawd. He strikes me as one who wants to avoid the baggage that the term atheist carries, probably because he knows it would hurt his book sales.

(September 22, 2015 at 10:25 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 22, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: See, that's the problem with the fairy tale.  There are no original sources from the time period that it supposedly happened.  All of the sources are dated from around 700 AD to even the 1600s or later.  Therefore, all of the sources that are supposed to support the fairy tale are pure BS.  The whole thing is a big lie.

In fairness, though our oldest copy of Tacitus dates from the 11th century, and was copied by a Christian monk, there doesn't seem to be any signs of obvious tampering, as with the Josephus accounts. The Latin from Tacitus is correct second century Roman usage, and he doesn't appear to suddenly break from his narrative in tone, so if there's anything not from the original in there, it was very cleverly inserted. I typically take the Tacitus at face value (not that it's worth much in terms of this discussion, other than proving that there were Roman Christians in Nero's time and they thought their Annointed One was killed by Pilate).

Josephus, on the other hand, was so heavily added to and edited by later Christian copyists/defrauders that it's hard to even tell how much to throw out. Some of it is obvious, though. Part of the way we know the interpolated sections of Josephus are frauds are 1) they use Latin in a way the late first-Century Romans did not, and 2) they speak of Jesus in a way that Josephus absolutely  would not... the "if it be lawful to call him a man" is my personal favorite bit of fan fiction in all of literature.

The point I'm making is that those stories were not copied from earlier stuff.  Those stories were written in the Middle Ages.  There were pure fabrications.

(September 22, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 11:02 pm)Irrational Wrote: Ok, and please don't ignore this request at all, because otherwise it means you're not interested in an honest discussion. In which book and page does Ehrman say Tacitus' remark about the Christians is solid support for Jesus' existence?

I promise I will not ignore you, but before I give you the answer, I have a question for you.

Are you asking because you don't believe that Ehrman views Tacitus' remarks as corroboration of the existence of the historical Jesus?

From what I remember reading from him, he never saw it as strong evidence for Jesus' existence. He did mention it, however, as a nonChristian source that mentioned Jesus from those days. But I recall him saying something along the lines of it's not that good as evidence.

(September 22, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 22, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'll try that approach.

What about you, Stimbo?

Do you have a question about theism or Catholicism that you'd like to ask?

Not especially. But thanks for asking.

I hate it when sales people hover and keep offering to help.