(March 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Beccs Wrote: "Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (/ˈtæsɪtʊs/; c. AD 56 – after 117)"

AS we say, there are no CONTEMPORARY citations for the life of Jesus outside the bible.

LOL....this is a favorite mainline of internet infidels....

No academic would use it, but I will humor you by asking.....

So what? What reference do you have regarding the historiographical methodology that can substantiate your assertion that a necessary condition of historical reliability of an account of someone's life is that there be contemporaneous accounts of said person?

So, you can't truly answer that?

The Romans kept records very well, but there are no records of the dead rising from their graves, for one thing.

Like Deirdre, I have no problem with the concept that Jesus, the man, or someone like him existing and giving rise to the stories. BUT I have a problem with a book that has several versions of the same story being cited as fact.

We'll have our thread tomorrow.

(March 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Based on what he posted, it would stand to reason that it's the closest to an objective resource that I've ever seen. That anyone has ever seen, when you read through it. It certainly doesn't say with certainty who Jesus was, and the details of his life. That is still left up to interpretation, but it could serve as a decent resource for verifying that a man named Jesus might have existed and was crucified, and that he had a following. That's the part I found curious.

Yes but depending on who or what Tacitus used as his source(s), he's might as well be merely saying that there's a group of people who claim so and so is their leader and this is how he allegedly died. It's just hearsay.

As I stated, if you have to be a historical skeptic to maintain your views, views which no contemporary historian would defend publicly for fear of losing his credibility, then it is time for you to either change your views or confess that you really do not care.

As it stands you have to maintain that every historian who states Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is somehow wrong and you are somehow right, you, a man posting on an atheist website with zero credentials.

I will trust them, and leave you to your futile efforts of denial....

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.

Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.

Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time – more so than any of his contemporaries – with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him.

The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".

Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.

Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.

Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, but there are some mentions also in a few non-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These include the works of 1st-century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.

Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.

-Wikipedia


Anything else?

Congrats on completely missing the point. Whether or not a man named Jesus existed and died on a cross is insignificant for your case--which is that he was some god-man who died for everyone, for some bizarre reason having to do with mankind's imperfections or something. We're all still waiting for you to get on with whatever it is you think you have that lends credence to these silly notions that comprise Christian belief.

(March 9, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: but purely for the sake of keeping the debate in the more interesting areas, I'm happy to concede that the gospels we have are verbatim copies of the original texts.

So what do you want to debate on?

"Does the N.T. pass the internal test for reliability?"

This is the second basic principle of historiography enumerated by Sanders in his work.

Or do you want to go with:

"Are the gospels reliable biographies of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?"

I'm happy to stick with the latter. That after all was the topic you posed a little over 10 pages ago. I don't know what the internal test for reliability means to you but I should certainly be testing the text for internal consistency.

(March 9, 2014 at 5:33 pm)discipulus Wrote: As I stated, if you have to be a historical skeptic to maintain your views, views which no contemporary historian would defend publicly for fear of losing his credibility, then it is time for you to either change your views or confess that you really do not care.

As it stands you have to maintain that every historian who states Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate is somehow wrong and you are somehow right, you, a man posting on an atheist website with zero credentials.

I will trust them, and leave you to your futile efforts of denial....

Do you really want to be playing this game?

Alright, then: how many historians state that we have sufficient evidence to believe that not only did Jesus exist, but that he was god and performed the miracles claimed in the bible? Go on, I'll wait; how many can you find that won't fall back on faith, and will professionally make the claim that this is literally true based upon the evidence we currently have?

Can't wait to hear this one!

(March 10, 2014 at 4:15 am)DarkHorse Wrote: Can't wait to hear this one!

Don't hold your breath.

(March 9, 2014 at 9:49 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you really want to be playing this game?

Alright, then: how many historians state that we have sufficient evidence to believe that not only did Jesus exist, but that he was god and performed the miracles claimed in the bible? Go on, I'll wait; how many can you find that won't fall back on faith, and will professionally make the claim that this is literally true based upon the evidence we currently have?

There was maybe some guy named Jesus living in Galilee some time around 2000 years ago! That can't be a coincidence! What more evidence do you need, infidel!?