Lance

Polycarp: Discrepancies are one thing, outright contradictions are a whole 'nother fish.

And since Michael poured a little oil on your rebuttal, I'm not going to bother too much. Even those 5 sources I mentioned are somewhat later than Jesus' time, so its quite possible their references were 2nd hand or worse.

Another point is that with religion, its difficult to find the truth, particularly in the Christian one as all is taken on faith.

For example, if I were to walk down the street here in KC and ask people "did Jesus exist", most would answer in the affirmative, without knowning ANYTHING simply because its their faith that he did. Likewise with many ancient sources and apologies, people believed he existed...whether he truly did or not we may never know the answer to the question.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm: Polycarp, because I have a high opinion of you, I'm going to assume that you had never read Mara Bar Serapion prior to posting this. Otherwise, the too-terrible-to-contemplate alternative is that you deliberately lied about the content of that letter.

Michael,

I had a high opinion of you until reading your last post. The last two times I've responded to one of your posts you've never responded. Secondly, when you accuse someone of lying or never reading something they claim to have read you're not acting very civil. I have read Mara bar Serapion. The fact that you can cite an article which disagrees with my stance should not lead you to accuse me of deliberately lying. The majority of scholars do believe it is a reference to Jesus. Not ALL scholars, but most.

I specifically have said throughout this thread that I’m referring to sources of the first and second centuries – ones less than 150 years after the death of Jesus. Nobody else has questioned this timeframe. The fact that you wrote a recent article which relies heavily on sources written 400-1000 years after the events they describe would seem to make your point laughable. You have such a double standard, yet you’re blind to it. Pot – meet Kettle. Please retract such ridiculous claims, or else have your “Daoist Alchemy” paper removed from the SecWeb for violating your recent adherence to such strict standards.

No historian believe its necessary for a writer to have been alive during the events of which he narrates in order for him to be considered reliable. Your treatment of Chinese sources should make you aware of this. Or would you like for me to start providing quotes from your paper?

Please respond to this post. The fact that you’ve ignored me the last two times I’ve posted to you has lowered my opinion of you. Please tell me its not a pattern. Try to limit your accusations of lying to a minimum – it makes you look paranoid.

Peace,

Polycarp


[This message has been edited by Polycarp (edited April 22, 2001).]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DougI: There is where your problem lies, your bible isn't historical evidence. If you had historical evidence I'm certain you would have presented it by now. But since you didn't, argument over, your gods remain fictional. Up, up and away.

Doug,

Its quite apparent to everyone reading this that you have no idea what you’re talking about. In your first post you said:

“Jesus, on the other hand, is said to have come from a town that didn't exist until 300 years after his death.”

In your second post you said:

“No archeological evidence for Nazareth having existed in the first century (so my dates may be wrong, Nazareth probably didn't exist until 100 years after Jesus' alleged death). So there appears no reason to assume that Jesus existed since he originated from a town that didn't exist.”

Hmmmm…. First you said Nazareth didn’t exist until the 4th century, then you said it existed in the second century. We have a Jewish document which has been found which refers to a family from Nazareth and this dates to no later than the early 2nd century (most likely the late 1st century), so we know that a village called Nazareth did exist by the early second century.

The point that you can’t get through your thick skull is that Mark refers to Nazareth. Mark wrote no later than 75 C.E. If Nazareth did not exist in 75 C.E., then how did he know it would come into existence 50 years later in exactly the same area he said it would?

This isn’t a “straw man” argument. I’m quoting the very words you used. Anyone can see the simple logic of my argument. Are you going to address it, or are you going to sit there pretending not to see it?

Just come out and admit that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about… Or keep treading water and make us all laugh.

Peace,

Polycarp

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance: Discrepancies are one thing, outright contradictions are a whole 'nother fish.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the two Josephus passages I cited. If you did, then you wouldn't be so glib about the topic. Lets make this simple...

One of the Josephus accounts says 10,000 people died while the other says over 20,000 did. What contradiction in the gospels is more blatant than this one?

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> And since Michael poured a little oil on your rebuttal, I'm not going to bother too much. Even those 5 sources I mentioned are somewhat later than Jesus' time, so its quite possible their references were 2nd hand or worse.

The only thing Michael has done is to prove that he uses double standards when doing history. He wrote a paper on Chinese history which relied heavily on sources written 400-1000 years after the events, and he has the gall to criticize me for using sources less than 150 years old. He’s showing the level of his bias as much as you are showing yours.

Lets get specific. What timeframe do you allow for a historical account to be considered reliable? 1 year, 10 years, 100 years ?? Lets see how much history we’ll be erasing…

Peace,

Polycarp

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b] Michael,

I had a high opinion of you until reading your last post. The last two times I've responded to one of your posts you've never responded. Secondly, when you accuse someone of lying or never reading something they claim to have read you're not acting very civil. I have read Mara bar Serapion. The fact that you can cite an article which disagrees with my stance should not lead you to accuse me of deliberately lying. The majority of scholars do believe it is a reference to Jesus. Not ALL scholars, but most.

Please, there is no specific reference to Jesus in Mara Bar Serapion. None. Zero. Nil. If there was, you would simply cite it and shut me up instantly, instead of complaining about what the "majority of historians" (you have polled them?) say. Since you don't, and cannot.....and since you have read Serapion and know perfectly well it contains no reference to Jesus, just to a "teacher of righteousness" who may or may not be Jesus, you are either unable to read, or lying. What choice should I make?

You are damn right I am not going to be "civil." What you did was just plain dishonest.

I know you apologists get accused of lying all the time. Can you see why? When you post claims that you KNOW are untrue -- at best you can summon a "majority of scholars" which would include committed Christian scholars making up its bulk -- you are going to get accused of lying, Polycarp.

Each of those "specific references" is an unclear, disputed reference which has been dissected time and again on this list. Pliny got his information from Christians he tortured. Suetonius DOES NOT refer to Jesus, he refers to "Chrestus" who spurs the Jews to make trouble in Rome. Chrestus is a common Roman name, and thus there is again NO reference to Jesus here (there's a shock). I am not going to get bogged down in debate about Josephus. But 1st and 2nd century non-Christian sources on Jesus are thin indeed.

I specifically have said throughout this thread that I’m referring to sources of the first and second centuries – ones less than 150 years after the death of Jesus. Nobody else has questioned this timeframe.

Their problem.

The fact that you wrote a recent article which relies heavily on sources written 400-1000 years after the events they describe would seem to make your point laughable. You have such a double standard, yet you’re blind to it. Pot – meet Kettle. Please retract such ridiculous claims, or else have your “Daoist Alchemy” paper removed from the SecWeb for violating your recent adherence to such strict standards.

Hmmm...you mean the government records from the Tang and Song referring to artificial gold in the Imperial treasury? You mean the Daoist writers from 350 on who claimed to have made gold, especially in works from their hands printed after the 9th century? You're now swimming in waters whose depth you have no idea of. Before you get engaged in this debate, I recommend you review Needham's work, the references are in the article. You should read books 2,3,4, and 5 on alchemy, as well as book 1 on printing, of Volume 5. The Web is not going to be enough here, because there is very little out there. You should also try and locate a copy of Nathan Sivin's book Chinese alchemy: Preliminary Studies.

No historian believe its necessary for a writer to have been alive during the events of which he narrates in order for him to be considered reliable. Your treatment of Chinese sources should make you aware of this. Or would you like for me to start providing quotes from your paper?

Go right ahead. Do you honestly think I covered all the sources in one small paper?

No historian believes its necessary for a writer to have been alive during the events of which he narrates in order for him to be considered reliable.

Yes, but we're not discussing the reliability of the sources, we're discussing the reliability of YOUR INTERPRETATION of plain-language writing. Suetonius is a generally reliable source. When he writes "Chrestus" he is being reliable. However, when you see "Christ" in a common Roman name, you are making impermissable interpretations. When Serapion says "Teacher of Righteousness" his reliability is not in doubt. When you say this is a specific reference to Jesus, your reliability is instantly in doubt. When you quote Marcus Aurelius, who died in 180, as a reference to Jesus, long after Christianity got rolling, you're going to get in trouble.

Please respond to this post. The fact that you’ve ignored me the last two times I’ve posted to you has lowered my opinion of you. Please tell me its not a pattern. Try to limit your accusations of lying to a minimum – it makes you look paranoid.

Peace,

Polycarp

What last two times?

As for Serapion, just post the reference to "Jesus" in it and end this discussion.

You're not in a position to talk about historical honesty in writing, Polycarp. You blew it with this post. What you should have said was that many of the references you posted were hotly disputed and then stated your beliefs. No one could have argued. But you didn't bother to, did you?

As for my historical honesty, the only reason you know I misconstrued the transmission of that text I was using was that I found the references and gave them to you, with the web link. Real honesty, Polycarp, is undermining your own position.

If you review the thread on in Science and Skepticism on Science that Bede and I did, you'll find that I reviewed Bede's claims about Christianity in a very fair-minded way. I even listed some of the positives that might support his position. I believed his position was far too determinist -- I personally tend to see more contingency in history than some -- and showed why I thought it was. There is still room for arguing his case, which I am, to be truthful, still exploring. In the end I concluded that my preconceptions about Christianity and science were wrong, and it had not held back science for 500 years. Public admission that cherished beliefs are wrong is the kind of honesty a theist can never have, Polycarp. That's the advantage of being an atheist -- we get to change our minds.

That's why I am so peeved at you! I had always perceived you as an honest and fair-minded person. And then you post Serapion et al as if there were no dispute about them.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 22, 2001).]

Hello again Lance

I am going to hope that you will change your posting habits, and actually begin to produce evidence in support of your paranoid delusions (yes folks, Lance and I go quite a ways back). For example, you asserted that Origin never referenced Josephus. I demonstrated that this was patently false. Did you read my post? Do you retract your previous assertion?

As for the rest of your post on this thread, offer some supports. The way this is done is you dig up quotes and evidence, and offer it, together with references that can be verified.

If you will do this, it would be greatly appreciated, and allow us to actually have a discussion.

Thanks,

Nomad

Hello Doug.

I would like to refer you to my original post in my Common Scpetic (sic)Myths thread. I will post the relevant passage for this discussion:

1. Myth: Nazareth is an invention of the Gospels, and never actually existed until Constantine had the town built in the 4th Century AD.

Truth: I don’t know where this one got started, but it is a remarkably persistent myth. Archeological discovers have already debunked it.

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. "
( John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57)

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources...
Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."
( Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, p.42)


Out of curiosity, where did you come by your belief that Nazareth was a Biblical fiction?

Nomad

DougI

Well that about sums up your evidence for the existence of Nazareth. Thanks for playing but since you didn't place any chips on the table looks like your hand is finished. No need for me to waste my time listenin to your complaints and absolute failure to present any evidence. Guess you'll need to look for a god that actually exists.

Umm... just so that I am clear on this point, your criteria for rejecting a source is that it is offered about 90 years after the fact?

First the quote:

There was a group, loathed for its vices, that the people called Christians. Responsible for the name was Christ; he had been put to death by Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor. This checked the horrid superstition, but not for long; it burst out again, not only in Judaea where it had started, but in Rome, too, a sink into which everything vile and shameful flows and finds its vogue.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Alright, and what do we get from your link (interestingly, he is from Drew University, not that this should be surprising eh? )?

Since I have now spent so much time pondering this text, however, I might speculate a bit regarding its possible redactional composition.

Alright, so Professor Doughty speculates freely, basing his argument on silence. To be exact, the fact that the Early Fathers (like Tertulian and Ignatius) do not mention Tacitus' quotation (which Doughty speculates they probably read, not that he explains how he made this determination) tells him that Tacitus must not have said it.

Further, Doughty thinks that since the earliest copy we have of Tacitus' Annals is from the 11th Century, the Christian scribes had plenty of time to redact it, so the clear implication is that they did exactly this. Of course, without any evidence to support this belief, it becomes a nonfalsifiable assertion from Doughty, but what the hey right?

What I find ironic is that Josephus is said to have been redacted because the reference paints such a positive image of Jesus. Yet here we have absolutely no such evidence of anyone painting Jesus or Christians in a positive light (my reading of the text shows quite the opposite). The apologetic motive in this case, as Doughty sees it, is that Pilate is mentioned as being the one that condemns Jesus. My question here is simple, perhaps Michael could answer it for me:

For the sake of argument, pretend that Pilate did actually condemn Jesus to death. Further, assume that Tacitus new about this fact. How exactly would he report that Jesus was condemned by Pilate, and not be accused of serving Christian apologetic purposes by Doughty 1800 years later?

Now, question number 2:

By the 11th Century AD the prevailing view (by modern historians) was that Christians were blaming Jews (all that anti-Semitic stuff you know) for Jesus' death. What is the apologetic purpose of redacting this passage from Tacitus and blaming Pilate? Why not blame the Jews?

What we have here is an obvious case of "heads I win, tails you lose" argumentation from a need to be sceptical authority. He offers NO counter arguments to his theories that are newer than 1913, and declares victory by saying he speculates that Tacitus was interpolated by unknown and unnamed Christians from some indeterminant period of time. Does he have evidence to support his claim? Is his theory built on anything more substantial than pure speculation coupled with arguments from silence? Does he demonstrate (rather than assert) that Ignatius or Tertullian actually had read Tacitus?

Really, your level of credulity on this issue is unfortunate Michael. Perhaps you should dig into the issue more thoroughly in the future, and find out why the vast majority of scholars accept that Nero made Christians the scapegoats for the great fire of 64AD, and that Tacitus recorded the events as he knew them.

And we know about Celsus because Origin tells us about him. The smarter thing for our vast Christian conspiracy to do would have been to simply let Celsus disappear, and remove all references to him completely right?

Quick quiz for you Michael, how old are the refernces we have from antiquity for the life of Hannibal? How many are from non-Roman sources? Why this need to reject histories written 100 years after the fact?

Since even one ancient non-Christian testimony to Jesus is generally considered to be sufficient proof to demonstrate the non-extraordinary claim that Jesus actually existed, what is your point on this thread exactly?

I understand that some would wish to poison the well when considering historical evidence. I do not know if that is your intent here or not Michael, but if you are going to challenge sources, I would hope that you would be prepared to offer more than speculations and arguments from silence from theologically driven scholars.

Thanks.

Nomad



[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 22, 2001).]

Hello again Doug

I hope you come back and read my post just above yours. Then if you would answer my question in that post I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Nomad