Pliny is a terrible reference, he should have known all about the christians, if we're to believe their stories - and yet he doesn't...further, he doesn't act in the manner that we are led to believe (again by christians) the roman state would act confronted with their christianity.  If you want Pliny, you'll have to abandon parts of your jesus story. Be my guest. The reliability of Pliny is directly proportionate to the unreliability of christian sources. Fiddle with that slider and tell me when you find a comfy balance?

Pliny probably wrote "Chrestians" just like Tacitus did.  Some helpful scribe changed it later.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 12:22 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why is it lazy?

Demonstrated in post #651.

That wasn't an answer just a repetition of not wanting to think things could be other than what you believe.

As you can see from my own post I happen to think that there may have been a historical jesus and gave my reason, but you decided to ignore that bit.

And let me remind you I have a much evidence for my stance as you have for yours i.e. zero.

I'm looking forward to Randy explaining the Zombie Apocalypse of Saints.

I just saw one walk past! He's in a bit of a state...

(July 12, 2015 at 5:14 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm looking forward to Randy explaining the Zombie Apocalypse of Saints.

Oh well that's simple. Every lich needs an army of the undead. 

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 7:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You know, Randy... This women thing really gets to me.
Learn about Livia, Augustus' wife.
Learn about Nefertiti and Cleopatra, of Egypt.

How could such women become as great as they have, if the culture was so against them as you wish to depict it?

Did I make this up?

"Sooner let the words of the Law be burn than delivered to women." (Talmud, Sotah 19a)

"The world cannot exist without males and without females--happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females." (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)

"Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence a a woman." (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)

Touche, sir!
But the law need not correspond to common practice.

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: "But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense." (Luke 24:11)

Is that it?
Luke, the companion of Paul? Kind of a late testimonial attribution.... why do we keep coming to this?!

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: "Whereas men and women had hitherto always sat together, Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladitorial shows: the only ones exempt from this were the Vestal Virgins, for whom separate accommodation was provided, facing the praetor's tribunal. No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests; indeed, when the audience clamored at the Games for a special boxing match to celebrate his appointment as Chief Priest, Augustus postponed this until early the next morning and issued a proclamation to the effect that it was the Chief Priest's desire that women should not attend the theatre before ten o'clock." (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44).


Given the low view of women shared by many first-century Jews and Gentiles, it seems unlikely that the gospel authors would put the crucial testimony about the resurrection of Jesus into the mouths of women who simply would not be believed by many who heard of these reports.

Segregation in Rome is not the same as the mistrust found in Israel.

So... if the testimony came from women... why trust it? The obvious conclusion is: There is no reliable testimony of an empty tomb.

(July 12, 2015 at 7:25 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Did I make this up?

"Sooner let the words of the Law be burn than delivered to women." (Talmud, Sotah 19a)

"The world cannot exist without males and without females--happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females." (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)

"Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence a a woman." (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)

Touche, sir!
But the law need not correspond to common practice.

Thank you. It's nice to get some recognition from the Other Side once in awhile when it is due.

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote:"But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense." (Luke 24:11)

Is that it?
Luke, the companion of Paul? Kind of a late testimonial attribution.... why do we keep coming to this?!

I just threw that in as a bonus. It does show that not even the disciples themselves were quick to believe the women, though.

(July 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote:"Whereas men and women had hitherto always sat together, Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladitorial shows: the only ones exempt from this were the Vestal Virgins, for whom separate accommodation was provided, facing the praetor's tribunal. No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests; indeed, when the audience clamored at the Games for a special boxing match to celebrate his appointment as Chief Priest, Augustus postponed this until early the next morning and issued a proclamation to the effect that it was the Chief Priest's desire that women should not attend the theatre before ten o'clock." (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44).


Given the low view of women shared by many first-century Jews and Gentiles, it seems unlikely that the gospel authors would put the crucial testimony about the resurrection of Jesus into the mouths of women who simply would not be believed by many who heard of these reports.

Segregation in Rome is not the same as the mistrust found in Israel.

Quote:So... if the testimony came from women... why trust it? The obvious conclusion is: There is no reliable testimony of an empty tomb.

He's on the edge...closer...he's wavering...closer...will he fall....look into my eyes, poca...you're getting sleepy...

So, how's the shooting fish in a barrel going, Randy?

I think you better put me on ignore from the start.

Here's another set of minimal facts:

1) The bible is the claim. The truth of what it says is the subject of debate. Any attempt to demonstrate the truth of one part of the claim by using another part of the claim at best only shows internal consistency. The gospel accounts are certainly not independent sources; at best they amount to two accounts rather than four and there's no evidence that they are anything other than hearsay.

2) The claims that are of any importance (the magical ones) are of an extraordinary nature. Anyone approaching the claims objectively and with any kind of rigour should therefor expect a similarly extraordinary standard of evidence before believing such claims. To accept anything less is the result of special pleading or points to someone who believes anything they are told at face value.

3) The only evidence we have outside of the claim is a bunch of vague references to the mere existence of one of the characters, and people's opinions and beliefs about him.

4) This level of evidence is barely enough to establish that one of the characters was based on a real person. It is about as far away from extraordinary evidence of these magical claims as you could get.

This should be of utmost importance to anyone who makes life decisions based on whether or not these claims are true. As it happens, I'm not one of those people. It wouldn't change a thing for me even if the magical claims were true. But I take it seriously anyway because such a large number of other people do.