The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

And the Romans wouldn't have any records of Jesus trial, because he was tried by Jewish authorities. Unfortunately, we have no records of ANY proceedings of the Sanhedrin prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Even so, we also lack ANY official reports from Pilate regarding any of his crucifixions.

Are our records of Socrates trial official governmental transcripts?

But it is well known that those records are unreliable.

Do you have anything more reputable?

Begging the question, poisoning the well, assuming facts not in evidence, trolling, and ad hominem.

And try to keep your eye on the ball. It appears that this thread is devolving into another "there is no evidence that Jesus existed" thread. Are you saying that because you doubt the accuracy of the reports of Jesus' trial, that you also doubt that Jesus even existed?

And what makes you think that they are any less reliable than our records of the trial of Socrates? That was the specific issue that I was responding to.




[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 08, 2001).]

"Therefore to squelch the rumor that 'Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome', Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called 'Christians', [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated."

I don't see any information that Tacitus knew of any record or anything else that he hadn't been told of by Christians (the third possibility you left out) or that was common knowledge during his time (another possibility you ignored). I know many apologists claim that Tacitus consulted some sort of archive for that remark, but Layman's remark that Jesus was tried by Jewish authorities would sort of rule that out. In any case, Tacitus' remark is not very good evidence of anything, except that Tacitus was familiar with Christian claims.

The Talmud, as you point out, dates from too late to be a reliable early reference.

Why would any skeptic believe Paul to be a fraud?

Layman, did Socrates rise on the third day? If Socrates did turn out to be a myth, what would the big deal be? Would his philosophical stances be less meaningful? Is Socrate's life somehow bound up with a series of impossible and ridiculous miracles? Do people kill and die in his name? Anyone who has any serious discussion of Socrates automatically mentions his semi-mythic status. Try getting that kind of balanced viewpoint from a Christian apologist.

Michael

"Why would any skeptic believe Paul to be a fraud?"

You would have to ask them. Of course, I can't understand why any self respecting skeptic denies the mere existence of Jesus.

Regardless, my point wasn't to prove that Paul existed, but to point out that we have no pagan or Jewish references to an important first century religious figure (as opposed to your inapposite comparison to Ceasar) who would have been more likely to be "picked up on the radar" than Jesus would have.

So, given the lack of Pagan or Jewish references to Paul, why would you expect so much more for Jesus? Heck, Paul didn't even get picked up on Josephus' radar.

"Layman, did Socrates rise on the third day? If Socrates did turn out to be a myth, what would the big deal be? Would his philosophical stances be less meaningful? Is Socrate's life somehow bound up with a series of impossible and ridiculous miracles? Do people kill and die in his name? Anyone who has any serious discussion of Socrates automatically mentions his semi-mythic status. Try getting that kind of balanced viewpoint from a Christian apologist."

So, because people "kill and die" in Jesus' name, he is less likely to have existed? Are you saying that believing in the mere existence of Jesus is such a dangerous prospect that we can't allow it? Is this history or just anti-religious bigotry?

Oh, no wait. Now I see. Even though we have multiple and independent attestations about Jesus' life and teachings, because they also report the miraculous, they MUST have invented Jesus as well. I'll say it again, "Begging the question, poisoning the well, assuming facts not in evidence, trolling, and ad hominem."

Originally posted by turtonm:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I don't see any information that Tacitus knew of any record or anything else that he hadn't been told of by Christians (the third possibility you left out) or that was common knowledge during his time (another possibility you ignored). I know many apologists claim that Tacitus consulted some sort of archive for that remark, but Layman's remark that Jesus was tried by Jewish authorities would sort of rule that out. In any case, Tacitus' remark is not very good evidence of anything, except that Tacitus was familiar with Christian claims.

The point is that Tacitus believed Jesus actually existed. He thinks Christians are a bunch of ignorant hicks, yet you say he believes the information that *Christians* gave him about Jesus. Uhhh... Does that make sense? If he received any information from Christians, then he would have confirmed it with someone whose opinion he trusted. He sure wouldn’t have put much trust in Christians based on the fact that he thinks they’re superstitious. Yet he never doubts the existence of Jesus. My initial assertion still stands – Tacitus was in a far better position than you are to know whether or not Jesus existed. Unless, of course, you have something you’re not telling us. Why should anyone believe you over Tacitus on this issue? You’re simply avoiding the clear and blatant evidence that we have a non-Christian who is in a position of authority with access to a lot of historical information who believes that Jesus existed.

You’re correct about there being other possibilities for sources used by Tacitus. I’m not claiming that there was some sort of court transcript of Jesus’ trial or execution. All I’m claiming is that there may have been records that some Jew named Jesus of Nazareth got crucified under Pontius Pilate. Even if I’m wrong on this count, the previous paragraph still stands.


Peace,

Polycarp

Quoted from Polycarp: "Therefore to squelch the rumor that 'Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome', Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called 'Christians', [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated."
- Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (written in 112 C.E.)

He says that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Where does he get this info?

_____

If you note, he does NOT say that Christ was crucified, he says that Jesus "had been executed" - now, you can infer that he was crucified, but he did NOT say it... there, take it back now...

Only in the bible. There are no other docuements varifying that it ever took place and the Romans were VERY good record keepers.

Originally posted by Teutonic:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If you note, he does NOT say that Christ was crucified, he says that Jesus "had been executed" - now, you can infer that he was crucified, but he did NOT say it... there, take it back now...

Interesting point, but I think my inference is valid. The most literal translation of the passage says that Christ "suffered the extreme penalty". Roman readers would naturally assume crucifixion as it was the most common form of execution and considered the most brutal.

If Tacitus got his info from Christians, then I'm sure he knew it was crucifixion. Let's hear your theory on where he got his info.

Did you have a more substantive argument OR were you nitpicking on a minor detail in order to avoid the more substantial case I made to show that Tacitus believed Jesus existed?


Peace,

Polycarp

Well, you can call it nitpicking if you want, but inference is just that. That passage you quoted didn't say Jesus suffered the extreme penalty either, unless you're looking at another inference somewhere. Your quote says:
"Therefore to squelch the rumor that 'Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome', Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called 'Christians', [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. "

It says the Christians were subjected to refined tortures... Doesn't say Jesus was.

Nitpicking? To each his own.....