Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NZSkep · 08-01-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

The OP. 'what makes a historic fact'

Obviusly nothing can be know for certain, but the more, better, evidence we can find for something, the more likely it is to be the truth.

i see, i see. Well, it seems to me that the evidence you compare it to is legitmized, at least in part, by being historical fact within itself and thus quite the fallacious response.

your post makes no sense. the evidence is legitimised by being consistant with other evidence. The bible cannot have this quality as there is no other contempory evidence of christs existence. This does not mean he did not exist, just thatthe evidence for his existence is very scant.

unless you want to throw out every document about everything you yourself have not witnessed, then you must accept some things. I choose to accept independant, internally consistant eyewitness accounts, of things that, at least, could have happened in the real world.

If you want to accept the bible's accounts of miracles and other magical bullshit go right ahead.

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

ETA: yeah you are right about tacitus/pliny, but the point remains that they were merely reporting about a group of christians, nothing about whether christ existed.

Read that Tacitus one again. And who contradicts Tacitus? There's not a single person in antiquity who thought that Christ didn't exist. The closest thing to that thought that he was a phantom on earth.

~M~ · 08-01-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

your post makes no sense. the evidence is legitimised by being consistant with other evidence.

jeesh. if your answer is that it is legitmized by other historic facts in terms of its consistency, then it is a fallacious answer. I'm pretty sure it's circular.

Furthermore, consistency is only one variable. If two competing explanations were both consistent with what we know to be true, then your answer, if left on its own, is virtually useless.

Quote:

The bible cannot have this quality as there is no other contempory evidence of christs existence. This does not mean he did not exist, just thatthe evidence for his existence is very scant.

i am not asking what would make something unreliable but rather what would make it reliable. :huh:

Quote:

unless you want to throw out every document about everything you yourself have not witnessed, then you must accept some things. I choose to accept independant, internally consistant eyewitness accounts, of things that, at least, could have happened in the real world.

If you want to accept the bible's accounts of miracles and other magical bullshit go right ahead.

Did you bump your head? What's this about miracles and accepting the bible? I say again, for the second time: I am non-christian.

Again: NON-CHRISTIAN.

DCHindley · 08-01-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

I would more likely disregard those because they are not contempory sources. i.e. they are both written years after Jesus supposedly died and so are simply reporting on what others told them. (and in fact, the authers were not even born until after his death IIRC)

Tacitus is merely reporting that there are a group of people who worship a guy called christus. This tells us nothing about Jesus' existance, merely about the existance of people who worship someone called christ.

You've confused Tacitus and Pliny. Pliny mentions that Christians worship Christus as if he were a God. Tacitus reports that Christians get their name from Christus who "suffered the ultimate penalty" by Pilate.

Yeah, I think I was doing the same thing in my earlier post. All Pliny the Younger mentions is the term "Christian" and refers to a certain "Christ", although it would seem he knew what that term signified and thought Trajan would also know.

That he found the idea of singing a "hymn to Christ, as to a god" surprising suggests that what he knew of "Christ" made him expect something other than a divine redeemer figure, which is what the title signifies in the NT documents.

DCH

Sauron · 08-01-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

if your answer is that it is legitmized by other historic facts in terms of its consistency,

That was not his answer.

Quote:

Furthermore, consistency is only one variable.

"Only one variable"? How do you know how many variables impact this question?

You asked us what the criteria were. Now you seem to have a personal list of your own that you are working from. If you already have a list, then why not present it?

Quote:

If two competing explanations were both consistent with what we know to be true, then your answer, if left on its own, is virtually useless.

No, but your assumption is showing. Can you work it out for yourself?

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.

Eh? You realize the "bible" isn't one work, but many texts by many authors written at different times. While there may be some genetic relationship between the synoptics, the idea that the Christian scriptures is "one source' is a wonder of preselection by you.

You have essentially defined all Christian scriptures preemptively as one thing, and then concluded (naturally) that the Jesus narrative has only one source.

This is rather sloppy, to say the least.

Gamera · 08-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You've confused Tacitus and Pliny. Pliny mentions that Christians worship Christus as if he were a God. Tacitus reports that Christians get their name from Christus who "suffered the ultimate penalty" by Pilate.

And can you demonstrate why second hand accounts are not valid? Have you done a survey of second hand accounts for other topics in history? Do we only believe what Livy says when he talks about events in his own lifetime? Do we distrust everything that Tacitus says before his birth? Why are only eyewitnesses credible? And how do you know they are actually eyewitnesses? Can you veritably demonstrate that eyewitnesses are in fact eyewitnesses?

it's not thatsecond hand accounts are always not valid, just that they are less reliable. For the same reason we don't accept hearsay in court, we don;t automatically accept second hand accounts, especially when there is nothing else to back it up (and especially x 2 when other sources contradict it)

ETA: yeah you are right about tacitus/pliny, but the point remains that they were merely reporting about a group of christians, nothing about whether christ existed.

Explain to us in detail how the gospel texts differ in substance from any other example of Graeco-Roman biography?

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.
We have no records outside the bible for any of Jesus' activities

Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? We have gnostic gospels, non-canonical orthodox gospels, tradition apart from the gospels (inasmuch as no literary connexion can be found) in church fathers, Tacitus, and Josephus.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-01-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

We have gnostic gospels, non-canonical orthodox gospels, tradition apart from the gospels (inasmuch as no literary connexion can be found) in church fathers, Tacitus, and Josephus.

What important conclusions about the credibility of Christianity have you made regarding this evidence? Where did your sources get their information from? Do any of your sources provide credible evidence that Jesus performed miracles?

~M~ · 08-01-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

That was not his answer.

Ya huh.

Quote:

Compare to Julius Ceaser - many independant eyewitness accounts (e.g. from his enemies as well as friends) written at the time, rather than years after the fact. We also have many written official records of his existence as well as contemperaneous coins with his face and name on it, and busts etc etc.

what's he comparing it to for consistency, eh? tut-tut- historic evidence that only has any worth if legitimatized.

Quote:

"Only one variable"? How do you know how many variables impact this question?

i am not ignorant to the issue. you have a precedent of having reading problems, so here it is again: i am NOT ignorant to the issue.

Quote:

You asked us what the criteria were. Now you seem to have a personal list of your own that you are working from. If you already have a list, then why not present it?

one of the things i set out to do is find out whether the persons who act as historians and critics in this forum have much understanding about the things they speak of. I suspected they did not; so, far my suspicion is left unscathed.

if you would like me to teach you, then ask.

Quote:

No, but your assumption is showing. Can you work it out for yourself?

huh?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.