Well said Rodahi.

Whatever Nomad and Layman may or may not have implied, I have certainly seen other Xian apologists state unambigiously that we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Julius Caesar. I have even seen it claimed (admittedly on a rather nutty website) that "the Resurrection is the single best attested fact in history". While I obviously didn't give them any credit, it's nice to have such a clear and concise rebuttal ready for the next time anyone waves such a silly opinion at me.

Everyone, what is pretty clear here is that Layman wants to go no where near the thesis of my post, which is that the events of Caesar's life -- not just mere existence -- is far better documented in all aspects than the life of Jesus. To date, he hasn't even begun to address the issue, instead trying to distract from the issue -- probably because he knows my arguments and the facts supporting them are sound.

Layman, the only person wasting bandwidth here is yourself.

SD, Rodahi, madmax, Toto, Grumpy and Pantera I thank you all for your support.

[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 07, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 07, 2001).]

How old are you?

I admitted there was more evidence for Ceasar's life than for Jesus'. The only caveat I drew was regarding the events of their deaths. You withdrew from that conversation and refused to offer a discussion of your sources.

Layman

I am not a moderator of this forum. I have no power or responsibility for any moderation tasks here. Outside of Existence of God(s) and Moral Foundations, I have the identical privileges, responsibilities and restrictions of an ordinary member.

As Koy points out, it is a common dishonest debating tactic to obsess over a trivial fault and ignore the main point of the argument. In Dennis's second post he states that he included you because of your apparent credulity towards historical sources. For you to continually object that you've never specifically compared Jesus to Caesar is an irrelevant objection to a point already clarified. Hence my comment objecting to your whining about an irrelevancy.

42, with a wife and two kids. Need I scan my driver's license into the computer to verify this for you? As others have shown appreciation for my presentation, I suggest your question implies more about your maturity level than mine.

As for your latter point, if Jesus's life has been inadequately documented then why should we put credence on the fantastic claims made about his death (or any event in his life), given that:

• Comparatively little information is available to us from the sources extant.
• The sources we have are not independent.
• The sources are primarily propaganda, and not balanced in any way by opposing views.
• There is no archeological evidence that buttresses the claims being made about the events of his life.
• Fantastic events, in all other ancient writings, are dismissed out of hand.

The sources for Caesar's life are offered to illustrate these points. The amount of material we have for his life is considerably more than we have for Jesus. The sources for his life are independent, and while there is some propaganda involved in his writings, they are balanced by those of Cicero (among others). There is archeological evidence that support the events of his life. And fantastic stories about him are not assumed to be true.

In short, if the sources are suspect, as they are in Jesus's case, then there is no basis to present the events of his life as a historic fact, as is frequently heard on this board.

To date, you have not discussed any of these points that I'm aware of. I've been in enough of these discussions to know not to allow theists to sidetrack the issue, which is what your primary tactic has been. If you care to address the point, I will respond. If I have missed relevant points you've brought up before, it's because you've spent most of your bandwidth quibbling over insignificant matters that I see no reason to waste my time with.




[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 07, 2001).]

LOL, you get an ego boost because atheists on an atheist board expressed approval of your post slamming Christians.

Now you pick up the guantlett and claim you want to discuss the details, when you specifically retreated from such a discussion earlier. Moreover, you pretend that it is I that refused to enter into such a discussion.

You made a lot of assertions previously, and I asked you to prove them. You have refused to do so. You said that all of the sources regarding Ceasar's death agree as to the time, manner, method and who was involved with his death. Moreover, you claimed that the sources were all independent of each other. But you have done NOTHING other than assert this. What are the sources? What were there sources? What did they say about the death of Ceasar? In short, offer your proof or quit pretending you have established this point.

As for the indepenence of sources, I spelled out the multiple attestation of part of Jesus' life in the Jesus, Miracle Worker thread. I discussed the sources at length. I offered it to you and you refused to discuss it. Rather, all you did is say it wasn't true. Again, PROVE your claims.

You've asserted that there have been no archeological evidence to support the claims regarding Jesus' life. You have offered no support for this assertion. And, it is simply untrue. Archeology has confirmed important parts of the Bible accounts, including the existence of Nazareth and Pontias Pilate. Moreover, I recently discussed how archeology lead to the revival of interest in the historicity of the Gospel of John:
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000253.html


You have spent a lot of time making generalized claims about the evidence for Ceasar's life. You have failed to offer any support for your claims. Moreover, you have spent much less time actually discussing the evidence for Jesus' life. Despite the lack of any specific discussion of the evidence, you think you've made a point. Whatsmore, to support your belief that you have made a point you have relied on the fact that some hardcore skeptics on an atheist board have applauded your efforts.

Prove it.

Double post deleted

[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 09, 2001).]

Sigh. You present a well-thought out argument with evidence and Layman runs around and claims I'm making "unsupported assertions", apparently ignoring all the evidence I've laid out. Layman seems hell-bent on making a fool out of himself, because all I really need to do here is to repeat what I've already said. You really ought to reread what I've already written, Layman, before making ridiculous about me making generalized statements. It only shows the lack of thought you've put into this thread already.

I've made the following claims about the differences between the sources for Caesar and Jesus.
[list][*] There are sources for Caesar that date from his time. This remains unchallenged.[*] The quantity of source material for Caesar is far greater than that for Jesus. Layman has conceded this point.[*] The sources for Caesar are clearly independent, while those for Jesus are not. Layman would have us believe I haven't supported this, but I have. As I noted, one of our sources for Caesar is Cicero, who was a political opponent of Caesar's. Yet Cicero confirms much about what we know about Caesar's life. Why Layman thinks I haven't supported this assertion, I have no idea. Maybe he doesn't think Cicero was a political opponent. So I offer the following from historian Michael Grant.
And no historian seriously considers Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, or Dio Cassius as being dependent on each other. If Layman doesn't trust me, then I suggest he do his own research. I suggest Michael Grant's Ancient Historians. Even Nomad endorses him. Tell me, Layman, where are the independent witness for Jesus?[*] Second, I noted that propaganda needs to be accounted for. I have even shown that this is done in Caesar's case when historians discount some of his statements as being self-serving. But Christian apologists, like Layman, present Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as reliable information about the events of Jesus's without even mentioning that they are all trying to persuade people to accept the same viewpoint. Not once does a Christian apologist say: "Given their mutual aims, we have to take what's in the gospels with a grain of salt." In fact, the only reason the gospels are given any credence at all is that they are primarily religious, not historical documents.[*]Finally, I noted that archeology supports the events of Caesar's life. We have busts and coins minted in his honor, demonstrating that he was an important man (something we lack for Jesus). But there is another important fact I've noted. One of the important events of Caesar's life was the conquest of Gaul. If he did indeed do that, then one would expect to find Roman ruins in that area dating from that era, which indeed we do. This is powerful, independent, if indirect evidence, that Caesar actually did what is attributed to him. Nothing of that sort exists for Jesus.

All Layman can say is that John -- writing at least (according to Layman) six decades after the events, and probably well after any eyewitnesses have died -- managed to correctly identify a town that existed, a man that existed, and a bath that existed. How do these things help to establish the events of Jesus's life? Do they provide any evidence that Jesus was the messiah, who performed miracles and was resurrected after being crucified? No more than the existence of Rome, Cicero, and the Coliseum support the events of Caesar's life. In short, they don't.

As for Layman's desired discussion, I suggest he start his own thread. There is no point in discussing the evidence for the resurrection if the sources are so weak for Jesus. The point of this thread is that the evidence for the events of Jesus's life are so poor that we cannot say anything about his life with confidence.

Nor is there anything stopping Layman from repeating anything here that he's previously said in other places. After all, he keeps making me repeat myself in his zealousness to point out nonexistent flaws in my argument. I've read through that thread and saw nothing that is harmful to the thesis I've laid out here. Why should I comment on something that isn't material to this present discussion?


To anyone reading this, I ask you to go back and compare what I've written against what Layman has written and judge who's been presenting and supporting reasonable arguments and who's been blowing smoke. For all his LOL bravado, so far Layman has been, in my opinion, a writer of some very lame posts.



[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 09, 2001).]

"For all his LOL bravado, so far Layman has been, in my opinion, a writer of some very lame posts."

Posts which you have refused to discuss or respond to. Rather, you keep changing your thesis in this post and call on the choir to agree with your preaching.

Once again, I do not dispute that Ceasar's life is historically attested to by more evidence than Jesus' life. But you keep switching between arguing that Ceasar's mere existence has more evidence, and that specific acts in his life have better evidence, most specifically the manner of his death.

As for your claimed "proof" that there are independent accounts re Ceasar, it is NOT proof of what I asked for and you claimed to have. I have asked you to support your statement that we have independent accounts who all agree on the time, method, manner, and people involved in the assasination of Ceasar. Please point me to your discussion of what these sources are and what they record as having happened. Please point me to your discussion listing what each source records as to the time, method, manner, and people involved in his execution and demonstrate that they are independent of each other.

THIS is what you have failed to offer. The fact that coins or archeological ruins in Gaul may prove this or that has NOTHING to do with your claim that we have independepent accounts regarding Ceasar's assasination that all agree as to time, method, manner, and people involved. This evidence may exist, but until you offer it, why should I believe that there is sucha vast disparity in evidence for the manner of Ceasar's death and the manner of Jesus' death?

As for the independence of our sources regardig Jesus, I once again refer you to my discussion of sources in Jesus, the Miracle Worker. So far you have just waved at this and absolutely failed to respond to it. Nevertheless, I'll summarize: Paul, author of the first Christian documents written, wrote of Jesus' resurrection independently of any of the gospels. The Epistle of the Hebrews, also was written prior to and indepently of the gospels. Moreover, its author seems unaware of Paul's letters as well. Mark shows no knowledge of Paul's letters, and where they do discuss similar events, describe them differently. Luke and Matthew used Mark, but also had access to their own sources independentof Mark. This includes Q, jointly used by Matthew and Mark, as well as M (Matthew's unique material independent of all the other accounts) and L (Luke's unique material independent of all the other accounts). Then, you have John, independent of all the others as well. Finally, you have Josephus, who is no propogandist of the Christian position and who largely confirms the Gospel accounts of the Passion Narratives.

And I am once again amused, LOL, by your appeal to the impartial panel of unbiased hardcore skeptics who take such propositions as "Jesus never existed" seriously.

Posts that are not pertinent to the discussion. Furthermore, I've been making the same claim throughout this thread -- that a comparison of the sources for Jesus to the sources for Caesar shows that we have no reason to feel confident about any of the facts of Jesus's life. I may have said the same thing in different ways, but the theme has been consistent. All you've done is to try unsuccessfully to attack my credibility, which has only served to hurt your own.

No, what I've been saying is the quality of the sources for Caesar means we can have some confidence in the manner in which he died. The poor quality of the sources for Jesus, along with the fantastic claims made for it, renders those accounts unreliable by any objective, historical analysis. I've never said I was going present exactly what the sources for Caesar's death said of it. That's a delusion in your mind only. I did say the sources are consistent in these details, and the reason I believe it is that historians describe the event with absolute confidence. I've already shown where facts are questionable that that is reflected when historians write about the event. If you think you can find significant inconsistencies in the accounts of Caesar's death, by all means do the research and present it to us. Your insistence that I discuss something I've never said I'd discuss speaks to your veracity, not mine.

Cicero, Livy, Sallust, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius. If you doubt their independence or how they report his death, look them up and present your own argument. No historian would take your demand seriously, and neither do I.

Your absurd demands are only making you look more and more foolish.


You're the one fixated on Caesar's assassination, not me. And the reason to doubt the manner of Jesus's death has to do with the poor quality of his sources, which you have yet to challenge. Nor have you challenged the good quality of Caesar's sources, other to make ridiculous demands that I produce the exact descriptions of his death. In case you don't get the point, this is not, and has never been, a discussion of a comparative narrative analysis of the two figures deaths. It is a discussion of the comparative quality of the sources for both. You are not going to change the topic. If the quality of sources for Jesus renders the historicity of his alleged resurrection questionable, then you're comparing apples and oranges. Unless you are able to call my thesis into question, which to date you have not, there is no point in making the comparison you want.

Finally, Layman makes his own case instead of expecting me to do it for him.

And I note that, again, you fail to note that all of these sources are written to one aim: to promote a particular religion. This means they were drawing from the same stories and beliefs, meaning they aren't independent. (Remember, Cicero was an opponent of Caesar.) This doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong, but that the sources do not rise to the level of confidence that we can have for sources of other ancient figures. Where are the balancing viewpoints for Jesus? There aren't any.

Furthermore, outside of the gospels, the empty tomb is never mentioned. Paul appears to be completely unaware of it, suggesting that the story is later made up to strengthen a belief. If you combine the obvious attempt to promote a subjective religious point of view with fantastic stories (such as the empty tomb) that do not appear in earlier stories (and would be rejected out of hand if it were about anyone else anyway), with the fact there is no evidence from the time Jesus lived (as compared to other historical figures), I see no reason to take your argument seriously.
It doesn't measure up to the standards used for other ancient figures. The fantastic events of Jesus's life may have happened, but there is no way they can be called a historic fact.

Man, you seem fixated by this. Great, you're amused.

[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 09, 2001).]