Connecting him with Jesus would have been good old fashion name dropping.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
The multiple surviving accounts don’t agree with each other. Just like any liar, they couldn’t keep their story straight.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
Ok who in his time named him? Please show me the contemporary writing that says anything about Jesus.
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later” but the guy is generally reliable and had access to Roman state archives, which we don’t, so we have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so (“Christians who accuse the State of crucifying their idol”) because he had the opportunity, and habit, to check sources, and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later”
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
but the guy is generally reliable
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
and had access to Roman state archives,
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so
How did you establish that?
and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
Standards of citation had not been established yet. Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you? And if so, can it be realistically attained? Do you apply the same method and standard to the existence of other historical figures? Can you even spell out your method and standards.
Standards of citation had not been established yet.
Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.
Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you?
Sure.
And if so, can it be realistically attained?
Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
Do you apply the same method and standard to, say, the existence of Nero? Akhenaten?
False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.
The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary.
What, that some guy got baptised, was a travelling preacher with a following, and got crucified is extraordinary? Also this isn’t about Bible scholarship (as such). The Bible doesn’t contain The Book of Tacitus.
What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb?
Noone is talking about the historical veracity of resurrection here, miracles, or anything of the sort. You’re getting religion all mixed up with history.
You see just because it’s reasonable to believe that Steven Segal can’t knock someone out with zero physical contact doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes sensible to deny the existence of Steven Segal. His Bullshido is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, his existence very much not so.
What, that some guy got baptised, was a travelling preacher with a following, and got crucified is extraordinary? Also this isn’t about Bible scholarship (as such). The Bible doesn’t contain The Book of Tacitus.
You brought up Tacitus, not me. He isn’t out of bounds now.
If you follow Mark (the first written Gospel) the ministry only lasted about 6 months. Something to keep in mind.
A guy is born in a one horse town no one ever heard of. He migrates to John the Baptist turf. In 6 months he has
Convinced 12 people in a poverty riddled area in a culture that emphasised familiar loyalty to abandon their work and families
He has mastered faith healing, speech writing, and magic tricks.
He somehow found the exact part of the Sea of Gallie that you can walk on rocks that are just under water and setup events such that only the youngest apostle sees him doing it in a storm.
With no money or power he convinces Lazarus and several others to fake their deaths. He has also gotten a local pig farmer to go along his ruse. Amazingly not one of those people decades later reports the con.
He convinces his 12 apostles and who knows how many other camp followers to go to the powder keg that was the Temple during Passover and start trouble. While everyone knows exactly how Romans deal with people doing stuff like this. The Romans even had a codified law that proscribed crucification. And yet none of them chicken out.
All the events in his life just happen to be mirrors of well known Jewish stories. Somehow he makes sure of this.
All the saying he says match up with dead Talmud authorities or a Greek translation of part of the OT. He makes a point to not quote from any book that was not yet in that translation. Go find me him talking about the Book of Esther for example.
But it doesn’t end there. Your buddy Tacticus openly wonders why the political movement still exists decades later. For a reason. They didn’t last long after the main guy was killed. Still think the claim is ordinary? I challenge you to demonstrate it. I want you, a regular Joe, with only the money in your wallet to go to some backwater of American civilization. Say Mississippi. Convince 12 men to stop working and follow you around barefoot. I then want you to take them to the Superbowl and rush the cops. 50 years afterwards your movement better be still around.
As I said the best explanation for the data is a long running con. James and Peter made it up, grabbing local legends, and kept pumping it out. You want to know why Paul didn’t know about the Tomb? Because that detail hadn’t been invented yet.
Noone is talking about the historical veracity of resurrection here, miracles, or anything of the sort. You’re getting religion all mixed up with history.
In that case there is nothing left. To save the claim you have made it so small you hope to squeeze it in. The exact opposite of what you do in science. You are supposed to look at the evidence and build models. Over time you are supposed to make larger and larger claims, right now you are going backwards. Starting from a big claim and saying less and less. As the limit approaches infinity you will say nothing at all.
You see just because it’s reasonable to believe that Steven Segal can’t knock someone out with zero physical contact doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes sensible to deny the existence of Steven Segal. His Bullshido is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, his existence very much not so.
Analogy is false and also a strawman.
Also you didn’t answer my question. If Paul was interviewing Christians for decades and obsessed with this one key detail how come he got it wrong? Could you imagine a DEA agent never knowing what LSD was?
Edit: forgot to mention that he makes sure specific events in his life align with other would be Messiah leaders. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.
If you follow Mark (the first written Gospel) the ministry only lasted about 6 months. Something to keep in mind.
No I fucking don’t do I look like a Christian. You’re the one pre-occupied with Bible interpretation, here, pre-occupied with Christian sources. You’re as obsessed with them from your (I presume) atheist POV as Christians are with them from their theist one.
So let me make one thing very clear: Acknowledging that there was some guy walking around current-day Palestine preaching and having followers doesn’t make that guy god. The existence of Jesus as a person and his supposed status as deity are two completely different questions. Be honest with yourself: Can you separate the two cleanly, or are they tangled up in some way?
Your buddy Tacticus openly wonders why the political movement still exists decades later. For a reason. They didn’t last long after the main guy was killed.
Christians still exist. The whole thing still continues – truth be told it is remarkable. The (mass-)psychology of religion generally is. spock-raising-eyebrow.jpg. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as state religion, presumably precisely because of its resilience and staying power, and arguably the Vatican is the last remnant of the Empire in the form of its ministry of religion. All of that, of course, has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus because in one thing you’re absolutely right: He doesn’t need to have existed for the mass movement to have occurred, a legend is sufficient. Yet, judging by historical standards of proof applied everywhere else, that itinerant preacher existed.
Over time you are supposed to make larger and larger claims, right now you are going backwards.
And generally speaking no, that’s not how the scientific method works, it’s invariant in regards to scope of hypothesis. Now it’s usually practical to start with small claims because they’re easier to prove and then build on that, but it’s by no means a prerequisite. As a counterexample, take something like materialism: That’s actually a very big claim. You can then go ahead and figure out physics, and then people are going to come along and do some woo and say that physics can’t explain consciousness, so you fill in details on how consciousness can emerge from matter, that’s going from big picture to small picture, yet would you call materialism unscientific? (Current best model we have of consciousness and all that is practopoiesis btw just as an aside).
Analogy is false and also a strawman.
That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. If someone said “Steven Segal is god” and I said “God does not exist”, does it necessarily follow that I deny the existence of Steven Segal? Or could I simply be of the opinion that the man, as well as his followers, are nutjobs?
If Paul was interviewing Christians for decades and obsessed with this one key detail how come he got it wrong?
Paul was a Christian. He was a true believer, of course he got shit wrong because, well, let me be glib: Matthew 7:8 “He who searches, finds”. You’ll find that one to be backed up by psychological research. If you’re looking for your keys you’re quite a bit more likely to find them as compared to when looking for your phone. If you’re looking for proof of the non-existence of god and tangle up a random preacher up in that you’ll find evidence for the non-existence of said random preacher.
Acknowledging that there was some guy walking around current-day Palestine preaching and having followers doesn’t make that guy god. The existence of Jesus as a person and his supposed status as deity are two completely different questions. Be honest with yourself: Can you clearly separate the two, or are they tangled up in some way?
As I said. You are weakening your claim to the point you hope to sneak it in. Instead of looking at the evidence we have and drawing conclusions.
, yet would you call materialism unscientific? (Current best model we have of consciousness and all that is practopoiesis btw just as an aside).
Yes. It is philosophy not science.
Paul was a Christian. He was a true believer, of course he got shit wrong
I see. So how do you determine what he got right? What controlled studies did you perform? Was he wrong about the Eucharist, the betrayal, having 12 apostles, visiting James, the crucification?
Fair point. Yet it is a philosophical stance which has pushed many a scientific advancement. The papers people publish don’t generally start out with “To prove materialism, we provide the following nugget”, but implicitly it’s usually there. Of course there’s also religious scientists but those are generally the “god in quantum uncertainty” or something kind of people, pushing the supernatural to beyond what can be measured… that is, they’re, for all intents and purposes, materialists when it comes to their area of study. Like that Big Bang guy, random example.
I see. So how do you determine what he got right? Was he wrong about the Eucharist, the betrayal, having 12 apostles, visiting James, the crucification?
Eucharist by Eris IDGAF about any of that religious mumbo-jumbo. Why do you even assume that I would have an iota of interest. We can talk about things like withholding assent to non-kataleptic impressions if you want but I really, really, couldn’t give less of a shit about Paul’s opinion on pretty much anything. If you want to accost me with Christian theology at least have the decency to choose Meister Eckhart.
Connecting him with Jesus in that manner tarnishes the divinity of Jesus. Baptism is supposed to cleanse of sin, Jesus is supposed to have been without sin, so what’s the baptism for? If Christians had made up the story it would’ve been Jesus baptising John.
That’s why Christian sources aren’t taken as gospel. But that wasn’t even what I was referring to…
Tacitus, for one. I know I know “decades later” but the guy is generally reliable and had access to Roman state archives, which we don’t, so we have to contend with Tacitus as secondary sources. You wouldn’t nowadays discount someone writing about, dunno, Churchill, would you, for reasons of them doing it “decades later”?
With Tacitus being the guy he was if Jesus had been made up he would’ve said so (“Christians who accuse the State of crucifying their idol”) because he had the opportunity, and habit, to check sources, and certainly didn’t have much love for Christians.
He wasn’t divine yet. That wouldn’t come along until about 2-3 centuries later with the rise of the Trinity ideas. Which themselves look like an import from Hellenism creating the Celestial Jesus of the 4th gospel.
To the monotheistic people being conned by James the idea of Jesus being divine would have been abhorrent. Even Paul didn’t go that far. Plus Jewish Temple law was clear that forgiveness offerings, as well as ritual immersion had to be done even if the person has no sin to be forgiven. See for example the Talmudic arguments about the mentally disabled.
What the? Do you know what gospels mean?
If you knew then why mention him? I asked for contemporary evidence not hearsay multiple times removed. I will not accept less.
The majority of people I know are generally reliable. Does that mean that they are always always correct about hearsay multiple times removed?
What archive did Tacticus bring up that says anything about Jesus? I want to know the author, the date, the location of the document, and the witnesses who vouched for it.
If they were using hearsay multiple times removed I would. Also, Churchill existence isn’t exactly a big claim.
How did you establish that?
Judaism had a long list of martyrs at the time. It is no way the insult the Bible literalists crowd make it out to be.
Now, can you please show me evidence? Not what some guy said after playing 80 years of telephone.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept%2Ftake as gospel
Standards of citation had not been established yet. Anyhow we couldn’t check things such as state archives for veracity anyway because they’re lost and then your argument would be that Tacitus made it all up.
Is there a standard of proof that could actually convince you? And if so, can it be realistically attained? Do you apply the same method and standard to the existence of other historical figures? Can you even spell out your method and standards.
Not really my problem. If I was trying to convince you of unicorns being a real thing in the 9th century I don’t win the argument because record keeping was bad. You are making a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence.
And now we are mind reading. You have no idea what my reaction would be to a document that says (and was verified) “I Tacticus talked to Pilot and he admitted all the details in the account were true”. Why don’t you produce the evidence instead of arguing what a hypothetical me would do?
Sure.
Again not my problem. Just because you can’t prove your myth doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
False comparison. The claims of the bare minimum Jesus, as championed by secular Biblical scholars, are still extraordinary. And like all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It isnt exactly shocking that kingdoms have kings. What is shocking is even the minimal non-supernatural claims of Thomas+Mark+Josphius+Paul.
Hey quick question. If Paul by his own admission was interrogating Christians, personally met James and a Peter, and was Resurrection obsessed why did he think Jesus was buried and even while in Jerusalem didn’t bother looking for the Tomb? This is man who is the best authority we have and he has a basic detail so very wrong.
What, that some guy got baptised, was a travelling preacher with a following, and got crucified is extraordinary? Also this isn’t about Bible scholarship (as such). The Bible doesn’t contain The Book of Tacitus.
Noone is talking about the historical veracity of resurrection here, miracles, or anything of the sort. You’re getting religion all mixed up with history.
You see just because it’s reasonable to believe that Steven Segal can’t knock someone out with zero physical contact doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes sensible to deny the existence of Steven Segal. His Bullshido is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, his existence very much not so.
You brought up Tacitus, not me. He isn’t out of bounds now.
If you follow Mark (the first written Gospel) the ministry only lasted about 6 months. Something to keep in mind.
A guy is born in a one horse town no one ever heard of. He migrates to John the Baptist turf. In 6 months he has
Convinced 12 people in a poverty riddled area in a culture that emphasised familiar loyalty to abandon their work and families
He has mastered faith healing, speech writing, and magic tricks.
He somehow found the exact part of the Sea of Gallie that you can walk on rocks that are just under water and setup events such that only the youngest apostle sees him doing it in a storm.
With no money or power he convinces Lazarus and several others to fake their deaths. He has also gotten a local pig farmer to go along his ruse. Amazingly not one of those people decades later reports the con.
He convinces his 12 apostles and who knows how many other camp followers to go to the powder keg that was the Temple during Passover and start trouble. While everyone knows exactly how Romans deal with people doing stuff like this. The Romans even had a codified law that proscribed crucification. And yet none of them chicken out.
All the events in his life just happen to be mirrors of well known Jewish stories. Somehow he makes sure of this.
All the saying he says match up with dead Talmud authorities or a Greek translation of part of the OT. He makes a point to not quote from any book that was not yet in that translation. Go find me him talking about the Book of Esther for example.
But it doesn’t end there. Your buddy Tacticus openly wonders why the political movement still exists decades later. For a reason. They didn’t last long after the main guy was killed. Still think the claim is ordinary? I challenge you to demonstrate it. I want you, a regular Joe, with only the money in your wallet to go to some backwater of American civilization. Say Mississippi. Convince 12 men to stop working and follow you around barefoot. I then want you to take them to the Superbowl and rush the cops. 50 years afterwards your movement better be still around.
As I said the best explanation for the data is a long running con. James and Peter made it up, grabbing local legends, and kept pumping it out. You want to know why Paul didn’t know about the Tomb? Because that detail hadn’t been invented yet.
In that case there is nothing left. To save the claim you have made it so small you hope to squeeze it in. The exact opposite of what you do in science. You are supposed to look at the evidence and build models. Over time you are supposed to make larger and larger claims, right now you are going backwards. Starting from a big claim and saying less and less. As the limit approaches infinity you will say nothing at all.
Analogy is false and also a strawman.
Also you didn’t answer my question. If Paul was interviewing Christians for decades and obsessed with this one key detail how come he got it wrong? Could you imagine a DEA agent never knowing what LSD was?
Edit: forgot to mention that he makes sure specific events in his life align with other would be Messiah leaders. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.
No I fucking don’t do I look like a Christian. You’re the one pre-occupied with Bible interpretation, here, pre-occupied with Christian sources. You’re as obsessed with them from your (I presume) atheist POV as Christians are with them from their theist one.
So let me make one thing very clear: Acknowledging that there was some guy walking around current-day Palestine preaching and having followers doesn’t make that guy god. The existence of Jesus as a person and his supposed status as deity are two completely different questions. Be honest with yourself: Can you separate the two cleanly, or are they tangled up in some way?
Christians still exist. The whole thing still continues – truth be told it is remarkable. The (mass-)psychology of religion generally is. spock-raising-eyebrow.jpg. The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as state religion, presumably precisely because of its resilience and staying power, and arguably the Vatican is the last remnant of the Empire in the form of its ministry of religion. All of that, of course, has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus because in one thing you’re absolutely right: He doesn’t need to have existed for the mass movement to have occurred, a legend is sufficient. Yet, judging by historical standards of proof applied everywhere else, that itinerant preacher existed.
I never went backwards. You may have assumed that I was claiming more, but I didn’t. Different thread but have this comment of mine from before we started our exchange.
And generally speaking no, that’s not how the scientific method works, it’s invariant in regards to scope of hypothesis. Now it’s usually practical to start with small claims because they’re easier to prove and then build on that, but it’s by no means a prerequisite. As a counterexample, take something like materialism: That’s actually a very big claim. You can then go ahead and figure out physics, and then people are going to come along and do some woo and say that physics can’t explain consciousness, so you fill in details on how consciousness can emerge from matter, that’s going from big picture to small picture, yet would you call materialism unscientific? (Current best model we have of consciousness and all that is practopoiesis btw just as an aside).
That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. If someone said “Steven Segal is god” and I said “God does not exist”, does it necessarily follow that I deny the existence of Steven Segal? Or could I simply be of the opinion that the man, as well as his followers, are nutjobs?
Paul was a Christian. He was a true believer, of course he got shit wrong because, well, let me be glib: Matthew 7:8 “He who searches, finds”. You’ll find that one to be backed up by psychological research. If you’re looking for your keys you’re quite a bit more likely to find them as compared to when looking for your phone. If you’re looking for proof of the non-existence of god and tangle up a random preacher up in that you’ll find evidence for the non-existence of said random preacher.
As I said. You are weakening your claim to the point you hope to sneak it in. Instead of looking at the evidence we have and drawing conclusions.
Yes. It is philosophy not science.
I see. So how do you determine what he got right? What controlled studies did you perform? Was he wrong about the Eucharist, the betrayal, having 12 apostles, visiting James, the crucification?
I already provided irrefutable proof that my claim stayed constant. That claim is precisely that claim because that’s precisely what we have evidence for, and what’s thus also accepted by historians. Not bible scholars, historians.
Fair point. Yet it is a philosophical stance which has pushed many a scientific advancement. The papers people publish don’t generally start out with “To prove materialism, we provide the following nugget”, but implicitly it’s usually there. Of course there’s also religious scientists but those are generally the “god in quantum uncertainty” or something kind of people, pushing the supernatural to beyond what can be measured… that is, they’re, for all intents and purposes, materialists when it comes to their area of study. Like that Big Bang guy, random example.
Eucharist by Eris IDGAF about any of that religious mumbo-jumbo. Why do you even assume that I would have an iota of interest. We can talk about things like withholding assent to non-kataleptic impressions if you want but I really, really, couldn’t give less of a shit about Paul’s opinion on pretty much anything. If you want to accost me with Christian theology at least have the decency to choose Meister Eckhart.