Toto

Previous thread on the forged letter of Pontius Pilate concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is not the extensive amount of forgery in early Christian literature a good reason to maintain some doubts about the possibility of forgery in all Christian literature? I'm sure that's how a good trial lawyer would put it.

Chris Weimer

Oh yes, you would like to put Christianity on trial, wouldn't you? Damn, I thought we were discussing history, not the legal system.

Toto

So, yes you did make that comparison.

So now my feelings are pathetic - but you don't know what my feeling are. Your feelings, however, spill out all over.

Yes, you said we should engage them critically, but then you also said that they should be accepted at face value unless someone could come up with a good reason not to. And then you gave diana a link to the obviously forged letter from Pilate. What am I to think? The net effect of this is that you have to accept some historical Jesus because no one can meet the high burden of proof that you have set for forgery. It's a trick.

So what is my ulterior motive? It would really be a lot easier for my purposes if there were a historical Jesus - especially one who put current day Christians to shame, who would come back on the clouds and smite the Republicans who have besmirched his good name.

But what's your motive? The level of emotion that you bring to this discussion is entirely out of line for your claimed interests.

Chris Weimer

Stating that all evidence for an historical Jesus is the product of novelists and forgerers is not the same as saying that there is some forgery in Christian history. The two are not the same.

Make me laugh some more, Toto. Make me laugh.

What do you think good reasons are? Do you check your engine every time you drive your car? Or do you only check it when something isn't working right?

That she should have phrased her question better?

Oh really? Is it really that high? Tell me, Toto - do you think it's high because Jesus fails to meet it, or is it high by other standards? You see, if it doesn't meet your preconceived notions, than you reject it. You reek of bias now.

Except the historical Jesus couldn't come back on clouds and smite the Republicans, unless you seriously think that everyone who accepts the historical Jesus also accepts Jesus as divine?

O RLY? Toto, you're cracking me up now. You're full of your own bias, hypocritically single out religious documents as being suspect for forgery (while uncritically accepting Josephus as a good historian), and yet you think that someone who earnestly wants to know the past history, whose whole life revolves around the ancient world, shouldn't have an emotional attachment to it? Yes, Toto, when I see you abusing historical inquiry because you hate Christianity, I do get a bit emotional.

JoeWallack

JW:
Personally, I don't hate Christianity. I just seem to feel better when it's not around.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Chris Weimer

Understandable, but irrelevant to historical inquiry. Can we separate science from religion, please?

Solo

Hi, diana

I am taking quite a gamble, I know. We may yet see paleographical evidence that Moses did write down the Torah.

I take it that Josephus account of JtB in Antiquities XVIII. has not been challenged as fraud as the TF has been. Perhaps, I am naive.

I did not make any conclusions about Jesus existence on the basis of his reputed interactions. I merely pointed out that the assocations with known historical figures should perhaps put him in a different category than Abram and Moses.

I don't think your analogy with the boat and walking on water works. I was talking about the methods of establishing Jesus historical existence, not the reality of his deeds. Pontius Pilate is not "like" a boat. He is a unique historical marker. And again, at the risk of making myself misunderstood: whether Jesus actually stood a trial before Pilate, he is placed in the time and place of the latter's governorship. That information cannot be automatically nullified by beliefs that Jesus' body was removed from a place controled by Pilate by an act of God.

Tacitus may have drawn on Christian traditions; no doubt such a possibility exists. But the best an MJ hypothesis can hope for is that Tacitus' mention is neutralized by evidence. That would still leave the Christian assertion that Jesus was executed under Pilate.

Jiri

Toto

But once you have admitted that there has been forgery and invention, how do you know where to stop?

Glad to bring some humor into your life.

AFAIAC Christian origins is not working right.

Playing games, are we?

Um, I was talking about your high burden of proof to show a forgery.

It was just a wish. (Are you having some trouble recognizing metaphoric speak on the internet? May I should use more emoticons? :huh: ) And I have never said that everyone who accepts the historical Jesus also accepts Jesus as divine. I have argued here before that the historical Jesus was an invention of Deists and freethinkers who rejected the divine Jesus.

I don't uncritically accept Josephus. His work contains errors and impossibilites. But I am prepared to accept that some of what he relates might have some relationship to history. He was at least trying to write history, even if it was for a political purpose.

I don't single out religious documents as being suspect for forgery. There're all suspect.

And I don't hate Christianity. If I wanted to misuse historical inquiry to damage Christianity, I think it would be better politics to argue that Jesus existed and everyone else misunderstood him, especially people who call themselves Christians. It seems to resonate better with the enemies of Christianity.

But in any case, this discussion is going nowhere and eating up too much of my time. So have a nice day.

:wave:

Chris Weimer

Like you do for anything else. Politicians have lied - is everything every politician says a lie? How do you know where to stop?

Why are you checking the tires when the engine won't start?

Yes.

I was asking how high is it really? And you know I hate the term "proof". I'll suffice with evidence for or against.

You should read Erhman's account - it's more historically accurate than what you offer up. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk) pp. 23-32. It's a layman introduction to modern theories - I figure you could use it.

Funny you should mention that. I just received in the mail today In Quest of the Historical Pharisee - Steve Mason would have a field day with that thinking.

All documents are suspect? Tell me, how do you validate them?

People have been arguing that for years - it did no good, in fact, I think it helped increase Christianity! I know of one user here personally who would abandon Christianity if it turned out that Jesus never existed. As it stands, he remains unconvinced. However, no amount of "you misunderstand Jesus" has persuaded him yet either. If I understand him correctly, he grows more liberal according to what he finds out.

Your statement bears little relation to reality.

diana

Thanks, Chris.

Suggesting either that the miracles he wrote of actually happened or that he is incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Of course, since I don't see any reason to believe in miracles, I go with the latter. I assume, of course, that you go with the former. (To his credit, though, he does look askance at the assertions of miracles. )

I assume that by "literature" you mean "historical records." I'm very interested in some examples of historical records you have rejected as authentic/reliable and why. I'm quite sure there are many.

That isn't what I wrote.

Yes. I know. And why is that, professor?

We also apply common sense, do we not?

Of what? Why Jesus probably wouldn't be listed as Christus in an official document? Because it wasn't his name? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

If you think the Romans would list him as "Christus," I'm quite interested in hearing your argument. It doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps you can shed some light.

I'm not understanding how the timeline disproves me.

I take it you concede that the Romans were highly unlikely to list a crucified criminal as "Christus." These were official records, yes? It's reasonable to assume they would have Jesus given name in them. The question is, what documents or source did Tacitus use to make the leap from Yeshua ben Joseph to "Christus"?

No, but I concede I may not be expressing the idea very clearly. Tacitus had to get the title of the crucified man somewhere. Where did he get it? However, he didn't say where he got the title "Christus" to plug in here, suggesting (1) he got it from some reliable source document (but what, though? As you already pointed out, it doesn't seem to be GMark, as Tacitus "only offers this explanation"), (2) Tacitus doesn't, in fact, always signal repeated hearsay in his writing, or (3) I'm completely wrong and the Romans entered the "criminal" Yeshua into their official records as "the Anointed One."

I find option 3 laughable and option 1 possible, but improbable. Tacitus usually signals hearsay; it's a stretch, though, to assert he always does, particularly in light of this problem.

I find Tacitus inconclusive regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Exactly.

d