Toto

Please stop repeating this canard until you can actually assign a probability to the various options. The paper on Ned Ludd was presented to the Jesus Seminar by A.J. Droge, professor of literature at the University of Toronto at Scarborough and co-author of several books on ancient Christianity, who has more credentials than you do. The point of bringing up Ned Ludd is that you cannot automatically assume that historical sounding stories are based on an actual historical person. Figuring out the best explanation for the evidence is a separate matter.

McGrath has shown no insight into this issue, and I have little hope that he will do more with Doherty's book than he has with Neil Godfrey's intelligent posts - he will find something he doesn't quite understand, misinterpret it and mock it, and declare himself the winner.

McGrath should stick to science fiction, where he can do less damage.

Zenaphobe

Is there more or less evidence for a historical Moroni than for a historical Jesus?

We have a first hand eye witness that vouched for the existence of Moroni, and even saw him appear in several visions over the course of time.

We have the names of 8 witnesses who testify that they saw the Golden Plates from which the revelation of Mormonism was taken.

People were even martyred for these beliefs, and no one would die for something they knew was a myth or fiction would they?

Ask the Mormon church about the veracity of these witnesses and the revelations they treasure, and they will tell you that only a hardened skeptic would doubt the truth of the Book of Mormon and a historical Moroni.

Or is this comparison invalid?

Toto

Go back and read my last cite on this issue from the Infidels Library. In addition, note that Pontius Pilate was a prefect and not a procurator, which Tacitus would have known if he had learned this from consulting official records.

aa5874

You mean Jesus did exist like Reagan?

HJers claim HJ was NOT Christ but an OBSCURE peasant and now we hear CHRIST was his nickname.

The AD-HOC inventions of HJers do not make any sense.

The Romans EXECUTED HJ because of his NICKNAME?

When will HJers stop their AD-HOC nonsense.

GakuseiDon

What's the probability of there being no historical Jesus? What's the probability of Doherty being right? If assigning a probability is that important, I'll ask you this each time the topic comes up. That will be productive. It's "Ned Ludds" all the way down, Toto.

Toto

You're the one who claims that the historical Jesus is highly probable and the possibility of Jesus being like Ned Ludd is very small, so you have the burden of proof, or at least introducing some evidence or some argument.

The idea of a historical Jesus as the inspiration for the gospel myth of Jesus is a very familiar idea to you, but that does not make it probable.

And "Ned Ludds" all the way down" doesn't even make any sense. Are you making a habit of picking up phrases and using them out of context and in a manner to just muddy the waters?

judge

Where did you cite it? In this thread?

This is not evidence that the alleged hearsay came from christians though, merely that it might not have come from official records.

aa5874

The probability of there being an historical Jesus is LOW or NEXT to ZERO.

Probabilities are DIRECTLY related to credible DATA.

The Probability of an event is DIRECTLY related to credible DATA about that event.

There is NO credible data from antiquity for an HJ.

But what is even more Critical is that "Paul" made Jesus Christ so significant, so extremely important theologically, politically and historically in the WHOLE ROMAN EMPIRE that it is INCONCEIVABLE that Jesus Christ would have gone unnoticed.

"PAUL" ELEVATED Jesus Christ to a STATUS that SURPASSED even the Roman Emperors and claimed that Jesus Christ had ABOLISHED the Laws of the Jews.

No Roman or Jewish writer ACCOUNTED for Jesus Christ as found in the Pauline writings.

The probability of an historical Jesus is LOW or NEXT to Zero.

Toto

Yes. Pay attention if you want to join in. You can look up "The Jury Is In" by Jeff Lowder in the II Library.

Well, there are two possibilities. Christians want to claim that Tacitus researched this fact in the official records of the Roman Empire, as he did with other parts of his work. If he didn't do this, it is hearsay. The hearsay was either from Christians directly, or indirectly through others.

judge

If it 's all the same to you , I'll contribute when and where I want to, as long as I keep within the forum rules.
Im not going to go and read every post in this thread and read evry link, before I join in.
I asked for evidence, and you could have easily summarised it.


thank you

Ok...so....when I asked for evidence that it came from christians (which is what you mentioned) why did you point me to it, as if it was?

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just admit your overstepped?

But I dont care about christians. I just want to know what the evidence says.


We are back to the same point though.
What is the evidence that it came indirectly from christians?

There doesn't seem to be any.
Mentioning christians seems to be an attempt to taint the quality of the evidence.