aa5874

That is your mantra, you don't have to prove anything.

However, whenever another person makes a statement that contradicts you, all of a sudden you want proof.

I think I can use Occam's Razor, too.

You position is probably wrong, that is the best and most probable explanation.

No Christian writer used Tacitus Annals 15.44.

I will use Occams razor on you.

The best and most probable explanation is that you are wrong about Tacitus Annals 15.44.

In Ozzam's Razor we don't have to prove where every last word came from.

FathomFFI

Firstly, you made no statements that contradicted anything I have said.

Secondly, you have not used reason or rationality to demonstrate that I am "probably wrong." (That is part of using Occam's Razor btw)

Thirdly, you have not demonstrated why any Christian writer would need Tacitus for anything, and it's also an argument from silence.

Fourthly, you lost this debate before it ever started, and not because of me, but because of yourself.

aa5874

Now, you are trying to derail the thread.

MR. EDUCATOR, We are dealing with Tacitus' Annals 15.44 and Christus.

Tell me how old was Christus when he died and who was his mother, MR EDUCATOR?

FathomFFI

Who cares how old he was or who his mother was? How does that change anything?

Iasion

Greetings,

Really?
All of the evidence is that the Romans DID use such a naming system - for Jews and others.

Are are actually claiming that the Romans named Jews differently than their usual naming systems?
Can you provide some evidence for that claim please?
And a few examples please?
And a historian who agrees with this claim please?


Respect? It's nothing to do with respect.
It's how the Romans actually named people - we SEE them name people "X, son of Y" in many many cases (along with some other forms such as "X of (place) Z".)
Can you provide any evidence that Romans dropped the name of the father of people they didn't respect?
Can you provide a few examples please?
Can you cite some historians who agree with this claim?


But Christ means "anointed", chosen, or by extention - "the Messiah".

Do you really believe there were Romans records which referred to crucifying the Messiah?
"Calends April, Tiberius 16 - crucified the Messiah".
You really believe that Roman records named someone they didn't respect "The Messiah"?

It is obvious that Roman records could not possibly have referred to crucifying the Messiah.

Thus it is quite clear that Tacitus did not get this from any Roman records.



Posible?
That's all you've got?
Now whose hand-waving the evidence away.

Did Pilate have both titles Prefect and Procurator?
No.
Did Tacitus get it wrong?
Yes.
Would Roman records get it wrong?
No.

Thus it is quite clear that Tacitus did not get this from Roman records.


No-one here said Tacitus is meaningless.
Please stop with the straw-men.


But yet you are now doing exactly the same, but in the opposite direction - you are now arguing that because Tacitus sourced SOME of his claims from Roman records, that means EVERY statement in Tacitus came from Roman records records.


No it isn't.
Did you think we wouldn't notice you moving the goal-posts?
Your claim was that you can DEMONSTRATE that the Tacitus passage about Jesus came from Roman records.

Showing that Tacitus used Roman records for SOME of his book does NOT demonstrate that Tacitus used Roman records for the Jesus passage.

Do you think it does?


Are you claiming that this proves that EVERY SINGLE statement in Tacitus comes from Roman records?
Because it most certainly does not - a historican claiming his work is accurate proves nothing.


Ah - for the "most part".
So, you agree that not all of Tacitus can be considered accurate?


As if Tacitus writes only accurate facts, 100% of the time.
As if Tacitus has only "facts" in it.
In fact Tacitus is no more perfect than any other ancient work. yet you seem to be claiming it is 100% accurate facts (while also admitting it's only for the "most part".)


Do we know Tacitus used various written sources?
Yes
Does that prove he never ever used hearsay?
No.
Do you believe it does ?


Did Tacitus use official records for some of his information?
Yes.
Does this prove he never ever used hearsay?
No.
Do you think it does ?


Um, conslusive of what?
That Tacitus SOMETIMES used official records for his sources?
So what?

Your argument seems to be this :
* Tacitus apparently uses official sources for some statements
* Therefore, Tacitus NEVER ever used hearsay

It's the old all-or-nothing canard.

But it's obviously a false argument.
Tacitus wrote a large book covering many people and events. It is simply nonsense to claim everthing in it came from official sources just because some other things in the book apparently did.


Of course they, and I, will.
Because that's what the evidence points to (but not proves.)

Does Tacitus indicate the T.F. is from official sources?
No.
Does Tacitus use the usual name form that Roman records would have used?
No.
Does Tacitus get Pilate's title right for his times?
No.
Would Roman records get Pilate's title wrong?
No.

You claimed you could DEMONSTRATE that the T.F. was based on Roman records.

But you have conspicuously failed to do so.
Firstly -
you have failed to show any direct connection between the T.F. and any alleged records
Secondly -
you dismissed the issues with Pilate's title and Jesus' name which argue against it coming from Roman records

Your ENTIRE argument amounts to :
* Tacitus apparently uses official sources for some statements
* Therefore, Tacitus never ever used hearsay for anything in his book
* Therefore, the T.F. is from Roman records.

Do you really stand by the claim that every single thing in Tacitus is supported by Roman records?


Yes, he refers to putting down hearsay about a particular story.
So what?
Are you claiming that this proves he never ever used hearsay, not once?

Yes, when he knows the genuine history of a story, he refutes the hear-say.
Do you claim that means he knew the genuine history of every story in the book?


Yes, if he actually HAD the genuine history, along with the common hearsay - THEN he preferred the history.
Do you claim that means he DID HAVE the genuine history for EVERY story (including the crucifixion) ?


In fact we have several reasons :
* he cites no records
* he gets Pilate's title wrong
* he gets Jesus' name wrong


He didn't support any Christian superstition, (and he most certainly did not say anything about the resurrection) - quite the opposite - he ridicules them and shows Roman power putting down a religious upstart - just the sort of thing that suited his book and quite becoming to a historian currying favour with the Romans.


What nonsense.
The story of Jesus being crucified is not a superstition.

It's just the thing the Romans would like to hear - a religious upstart being put down by Roman power.
It's just what Tacitus would like to put in his book - a tale of Roman power triumphing over some religious crazy.
It's just the sort of story a Jew would like to tell and hear - a new religious threat being trampled.

In fact the exact opposite is true -
The story of Roman power triumphing over a Jewish religious upstart is exactly what we would expect in Tacitus.

In short -
you failed to demonstrate that Tacitus used Roman records for the T.F.

(All you managed to show is that he apparently used records for some other issues, and that he put down hearsay on another issue.)


Iasion

mens_sana

You just can't see it, can you! No one, NO ONE, thought Jesus was a fiction at the time, therefore NO ONE felt any necessity of proving his existence. The fact that you think Jesus was a fiction is completely irrelevant to what the ancients thought. And please don't bring up the Jesus-as-apparition argument that Jesus was a fiction. As far as the Gnostics were concerned, that "apparition" was never a fiction and could not have been under any circumstances because their beliefs required his "appearance" in history.

LOL. You've used this before. Please try to find a context in which it would matter!

And I thought vaudeville was dead.

FathomFFI

And how did I know enough that your response would demonstrate the lack of rationality that I implied when I asked you how serious you could be?

Let me demonstrate to you how your rebuttal falls apart, rationally.

1. You have NO evidence of your claims that the Romans would mark Jewish grave sites in the manner you've described. Therefore, your assertion is meaningless.

Correction: All "Christ" means is "annointed." It was translated from the Hebrew Maš�*aḥ. Here is the full understanding:

Therefore, the way the Romans understood the meaning of the word "Christ" was considerably different than that of the Jews in that the Jews regarded a person of religious authority to be the Messiah, but the Romans held to no such view. A Jewish Messiah was meaningless to the Romans, as was the word "Christ," for it had no religious significance to the Romans whatsoever.

All they understood that word to mean was "one covered in oil," just like the Hindus. The term "Messiah" is Hebrew, and it's meaning is clearly in regards to a promised anointed savior. But not so to the Romans or the Hindus.

Are you even aware that the titles of Prefect and Procurator are identical in meaning? They connote no difference in rank or function whatsoever. They are interchangeable and referring to someone with either title would be correct on both counts. The procurators' and prefects' primary functions were military, but as representatives of the empire they were responsible for the collection of imperial taxes.

Contemporary archaeological finds and documents such as the Pilate Inscription from Caesarea attest to the governor's more accurate official title only for the period of 6 AD through 44 AD as being prefect.

However, after Herod Agrippa's death in 44 AD, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governors of Judea were given the title of procurator, which became the standard title to refer to those governors.

Therefore, the history shows that the titles of "prefect" were changed to "procurator" after the death of Agrippa in 44 AD, and that is precisely why you see Tacitus regarding Pilate as a Procurator instead of a Prefect, because in AD 110 when Tacitus wrote his Annals, the Roman title for a governor of Judea was "Procurator."

And now you know. Isn't history beautiful?

I have read the rest of your arguments and seen that it refutes absolutely nothing I have said. All your responses are speculative at best, and offer no contradictory evidence.

So is there any sense in wasting any time in replying to a whole lot of nothing? :huh:

One other thing ...

You're right, I have absolutely failed to demonstrate that Tacitus used Roman records for the Testimonium Flavium.

How the hell could I forget that?

:Cheeky:

2-J

what a cop-out!

FathomFFI

Show me one single relevant question that required a reply? All the rest of his replies only demonstrate he personally doesn't agree with the evidence, and he offers nothing new to refute the evidence.

Should I just post the same evidence all over again? If it didn't make any difference the first time, then why do it again? Just to watch him say he doesn't personally agree with it again? What's the point?

All I did was post a case for Tacitus that he used official Roman records to source his Annals, and post that he preferred not to use hearsay in preference to genuine history. Nobody can refute that that evidence exists. What the evidence does is substantiate the argument that Tacitus used official records regarding Christus. The idea was not to prove anything conclusively, but for all rational minds to come to the best conclusion based upon the evidence presented.

He has shown no evidence to refute what was posted, but mostly asserts other possibilities with no supporting evidence. So what is there to debate about? He's posted nothing but empty possibilities, and anybody can do that. If he wants a debate, post evidence, not empty words.

He hasn't provided an argument against the evidence that's worthy of debate for the simple reason that he hasn't introduced any evidence to argue the actual textual evidence I posted.

He's obviously gung-ho on absolutely not accepting Tacitus under any circumstances. Therefore, all rationality and reason do not exist with him. After all, he asserts that I have I made the following claims when I have done no such thing:

I don't wish to engage with anyone who resorts to such immature tactics as demonstrated above. It is dishonest and intolerable, and not worth the effort of even typing out "Where did I say that?" to each and every one of these statements of his.

And guess what? I can live with that.

patcleaver

Your obviously right team FathomFFI, both Pliny and Tacitus must have both had access to Roman records regarding Jesus Christ because they both agree that Christianity is a superstition. The Romans never called religious beliefs superstitions unless they had irrefutable evidence that it was false.

There were probably documents in Roman records that absolutely proved that Jesus of Nazareth, and his crucifixion were just a fictions. They probably investigated it and they had the census records showing that Joseph, Mary, Jesus and the 12 apostles never existed; they had the execution records that showed that no Jesus Christ was ever executed; they had records that there was no Nazareth, and that Bethlehem was abandoned at the time that Jesus was supposedly born; and there was no murder of the innocent babies and no rumors of miracles by anyone in Judea at the time; they probably had sworn statements by Mark that his gospel was just a fictional stories and statements by Paul that his epistles were just a hoax.

Tacitus says:

"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

Tacitus' irrefutable testimony from Roman records is that it is a mischievous superstition that "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate". Thanks for establishing irrefutably that Christianity is just an ignorant superstitious fiction.