Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 03-24-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

And I don't know why we wouldn't expect them to distill out the claim that Jesus was god, or the fact that he got the info from Christians.

Because a Christian would put his being son of God first, so if they were getting it from Christians, they would be impacted first by son of God and second by a metaphorical

in their description as a result. They wouldn't "normalize" it by digging down to the secondary description. What motive is there for that extra trouble? I think Paul gives us a clear indication as to how the Christian would reference Jesus and what gets prioritized. Perish the thought that the Christian might pay attention to the social-justice angle.

Chaucer

The metaphorical? The social-justice angle? I've totally lost you.

I just don't see anything strange with the idea that people like Tacitus would hear stuff like: "Pilate crucified Jesus, the son of god!" and just give us what he supposed happened, without saying that it was a christian source, and just say: "Pilate crucified Jesus."

I mean, it's not as if Tacitus spends a lot of time telling us about Jesus. You seem in fact to be arguing from silence, that is, you say that if the source would have been a christian one, then we would expect to see some Christological statement in Tacitus. I just don't know why we would expect that in his short statement, and besides, he talks about "Christ", not Jesus.

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

No -- and a good point. Thank you. In fact, I don't mean to say that, and I should have known better than to adopt someone else's version of the alternative without suspecting a trap. More fool me. No, if they got it from their own knowledge, they would have said "During that time Pilate crucified some dude called Christ".

Better.

Chaucer

I see.

So one complete turn around later, which simply proves you are making it up as you go along.

I guess,Pilate had written that he had crucified the Messiah....

We've been through this before...............CHRIST HAD BECOME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME IN THE SAME WAY THAT GIPPER BECAME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME FOR REAGAN. HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY KNOW THE MOVIE WHERE REAGAN GOT THAT NAME?

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Because a Christian would put his being son of God first, so if they were getting it from Christians, they would be impacted first by son of God and second by a metaphorical

in their description as a result. They wouldn't "normalize" it by digging down to the secondary description. What motive is there for that extra trouble? I think Paul gives us a clear indication as to how the Christian would reference Jesus and what gets prioritized. Perish the thought that the Christian might pay attention to the social-justice angle.

Chaucer

I just don't see anything strange with the idea that people like Tacitus would hear stuff like: "Pilate crucified Jesus, the son of god!" and just give us what he supposed happened, without saying that it was a christian source, and just say: "Pilate crucified Jesus."

I do. "[T]he son of God" would elicit immediate ridicule and notoriety since the Emperor was already called that. Referencing Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ or Christ would not be strange because that Christ nickname was how he came to be generally known. See above post.

Chaucer

Toto · 03-24-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I see.

So one complete turn around later, which simply proves you are making it up as you go along.

I guess,Pilate had written that he had crucified the Messiah....

We've been through this before...............CHRIST HAD BECOME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME IN THE SAME WAY THAT GIPPER BECAME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME FOR REAGAN. HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY KNOW THE MOVIE WHERE REAGAN GOT THAT NAME?

Chaucer

The only actual evidence for this proposition is, I believe, that Tacitus refers to Christ as if that were his cognomen.

So this is a circular argument, no?

And lots of people know about that movie and "win one for the Gipper." It's part of our culture, where movies and reality blend together.

hjalti · 03-24-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I just don't see anything strange with the idea that people like Tacitus would hear stuff like: "Pilate crucified Jesus, the son of god!" and just give us what he supposed happened, without saying that it was a christian source, and just say: "Pilate crucified Jesus."

I do. "[T]he son of God" would elicit immediate ridicule and notoriety since the Emperor was already called that. Referencing Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ or Christ would not be strange because that Christ nickname was how he came to be generally known. See above post.

Chaucer

I don't see how that supports what I think you are arguing for.

So why exactly is it far-fetched to think that Tacitus is just repeating what he heard from Christians?

GakuseiDon · 03-24-2011, 01:57 PM

There's nothing impossible about a historical Jesus who was an itinerant preacher crucified by the Romans under Pilate, as the origin of Christianity. I don't think anyone doubts that.

If this is not the best explanation for the origin of Christianity, then what is? Can someone give me what the best alternate explanation is? Is it Doherty's? Can we rule out all other explanations as being inferior to the best alternate explanation? Should we all wait for Carrier's book and not post on this topic until then?

Or is this another example of "we don't know what started Christianity, but it can't be that."

Maybe I'll start a poll.

aa5874 · 03-24-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

..... "[T]he son of God" would elicit immediate ridicule since the Emperor was already called that. Referencing Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ or Christ would not be strange because that Christ nickname was how he came to be generally known. See above post.

Chaucer

What nonsense! It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. You have BEEN BUSTED, again.

It would be AN INSULT to The EMPEROR TIBERIUS to be called the Son of God.

Examine "The Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius.

Quote:

27 He so loathed flattery that he would not allow any senator to approach his litter, either to pay his respects or on business, and when an ex-consul in apologizing to him attempted to embrace his knees, he drew back in such haste that he fell over backward.

In fact, if anyone in conversation or in a set speech spoke of him in too flattering terms, he did not hesitate to interrupt him, to take him to task, and to correct his language on the spot.

Being once called "Lord,"42 he warned the speaker not to address him again in an insulting fashion.

When another spoke of his "sacred duties," and still another said that he appeared before the senate "by the emperor's authority," he forced them to change their language, substituting "advice" for "authority" and "laborious" for "sacred."...

You are just MAKING stuff up.

"Annals" 15.44 with "Christus" is a FORGERY.

Toto · 03-24-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There's nothing impossible about a historical Jesus who was an itinerant preacher crucified by the Romans under Pilate, as the origin of Christianity. I don't think anyone doubts that.

No one thinks that is impossible. But a lot of people think it is unlikely.

Quote:

If this is not the best explanation for the origin of Christianity, then what is? Can someone give me what the best alternate explanation is? Is it Doherty's? Can we rule out all other explanations as being inferior to the best alternate explanation? Should we all wait for Carrier's book and not post on this topic until then?

Or is this another example of "we don't know what started Christianity, but it can't be that."

I've already given you a possible explanation. I have no great investment in any particular explanation, as long as it is clear that Christianity was not divinely inspired, or so improbable that it must have been somehow extraordinary. There might have been someone sort of like Jesus - I just don't see any good evidence.

You can look at new religions being formed today and assume that Christianity was formed something like they were. But I'm not sure how anyone would want to be a Christian after going through that exercise, since we can all realize that these new religions are formed by psychopaths and charlatans and bipolar nutcases manipulating people.

You can post on this until you are blue in the face, but I think that Carrier's book will advance the debate and save some flailing around.

Quote:

Maybe I'll start a poll.

No another poll. :Cheeky:

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

We've been through this before...............CHRIST HAD BECOME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME IN THE SAME WAY THAT GIPPER BECAME A RECOGNIZED NICKNAME FOR REAGAN. HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY KNOW THE MOVIE WHERE REAGAN GOT THAT NAME?

Chaucer

The only actual evidence for this proposition is, I believe, that Tacitus refers to Christ as if that were his cognomen.

Oh, come on. Unless you're going to deal in ridiculous coincidence and just rule out two different pieces of evidence wholesale, there are at least two pieces of evidence, both the Tacitus passage and Antiq. 20. So which one are you going to discount? No, you can't discount both. That's too convenient. Discount one, if you must, and then deal with the other -- seriously. Discounting both is ridiculous and unprofessional.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-24-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I do. "[T]he son of God" would elicit immediate ridicule and notoriety since the Emperor was already called that. Referencing Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ or Christ would not be strange because that Christ nickname was how he came to be generally known. See above post.

Chaucer

so why exactly is it far-fetched to think that Tacitus is just repeating what he heard from Christians?

I answered that already in a VERY recent post in this very thread. You're not being serious or you really have some serious reading deficiencies.

Chaucer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2011, 01:57 PM	#246
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	There's nothing impossible about a historical Jesus who was an itinerant preacher crucified by the Romans under Pilate, as the origin of Christianity. I don't think anyone doubts that. If this is not the best explanation for the origin of Christianity, then what is? Can someone give me what the best alternate explanation is? Is it Doherty's? Can we rule out all other explanations as being inferior to the best alternate explanation? Should we all wait for Carrier's book and not post on this topic until then? Or is this another example of "we don't know what started Christianity, but it can't be that." Maybe I'll start a poll.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.