FathomFFI

Right so ... perhaps you can tell us what is so superstitious with Pilate executing Christus? Where's the "superstition?"

And did this superstition of Pilate executing Christus also occur in Rome? Pilate executed Christus in Rome also?

:rolling:

jules?

What is your problem with that, Christianity has been doing much the same for the lass 2000 years. Saying that quite a lot of history is speculation and i think that is ok, we cannot not know but we can have an enlightening time finding out.

FathomFFI

The speculation they offer is groundless and with absolutely no evidence for support.

They insult honest skepticism. They are not skeptics by any means.

FathomFFI

You'll never find out, because you will deny any and all evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You are not being a skeptic by any means.

You are straddling the border of intellectual dishonesty, and staking a claim in it.

Roger Pearse

My problem with that is that the distance between treating speculation as fact and lying is nearly invisible. If that isn't a problem to you, well, then there is nothing more to be said.

This seems to be the kind of argument that says if one man thumps another man, that justifies a third man in telling lies. Whatever someone else does, don't we all set our own moral standards?

Doesn't enlightenment come mainly from dealing with facts, and especially the facts that are inconvenient to whatever views we already hold? The facts that fit in with our opinions are likely to tell us nothing that we don't already know, surely?

The difficulty in the thread seems to be that some of the posters in this thread don't actually understand the difference between speculation and fact. As such, everything they say is merely dreamy but dull fictions, elaborated whenever convenient. As such, introducing facts is merely prolonging the dream.

Until people can deal with facts, it is fairly useless to reason with them, as it is with a child, and for the same reason. We don't blame the child, of course. But I would hope that posters in this forum are trying to develop their intellect past that of an 11-year old.

Incidentally you sound as if you're getting frustrated; if so, I suggest you leave it alone. There's no *fact* in all this; merely what (on a hasty glance) look like excuses invented to disregard ancient testimony.

Jesus: no sensible person queries that some chap called Jesus of Nazareth existed and founded the world's largest religion. Such an issue is not one between Christians and non-Christians but between the educated many (of both religious positions) and the uneducated very few (all atheists or Christian-haters). I never see the point in making an issue, which is not one of dispute between atheist and Christian but between atheist and atheist, something to talk about.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jules?

quite the opposite.

A few years ago I used to live near a stunning mountain called Caer Idris, the castle of Idris who in local legend was an astronomer, sage and skilled in all the arts and the mountain was his home and observatory [just like his namesake Enoch coincidently known as Idris in Islam]. The stories are interesting and perhaps some have a hint of truth but it does not actually matter. Thankfully no-one is going to war or determining todays morals based on the existance of Idris. It does not matter to me if Jesus existed or is myth or both [a possibility overlooked]. If absolute proof were to turn up it would not change my beliefs beyond how I view history. My interest on an historical level is the growth and development of a faith that has and still rules the world. I am interested in how it changed fro a local End of the World cult to the number one corporation.

As it happens I think the gospel account to be a late addition to the development but that is my opinion and based on some excellent articles written by MJers [thankyou]. I think you have argued reasonably wisely and I cannot simply dismiss Tacitus [or the one line featuring Pilate] as faked. It is about fitting all information together. This includes the question as to who the early christians of Rome were and what they believed as opposed to the beliefs of christians of Tacitus' day. The bigger question is why did Nero scapegoat christians, why were they dispised? Also why did Nero end up being an anti-christ who would return from death with the Persian army to destroy Rome?

If someone asked me if absolute proof of a HJ appeared would it change me my answer would be not much. How about you? if Jesus was proved to be a myth beyond all doubts would it change your life?

jules?

Facts, give me some facts. History is about speculation, archeaology is the only discipline that can deliver facts concerning the past and these are open to interpretation. facts in this issue of Tacitus is that the oldest copy of his work dates from a thousand or so years ago. It is fact that paper has a limited life, [an educated guess may place this at 200 years or less, longer in special conditions] so moving beyond facts into good guesses we could state that Tacitus' work was copies five or more times. It is not therefore a fact that what comes down to us is the genuine words of Tacitus. That is just for starters, facts are rare, in court eyewitness testimony is subject to cross examination from severial sources to get close to what could be a fact. We do not have that luxury.

Your last statement is speculation and therefore is as valid as a counter speculation based on the limited facts in our possesion [sorry my spell check is non functional, my keys stick and i'm dslyksic!]

The great thing about open and speculative debate is the possibility that a new approach to thinking about the issues may emerge.

all the best Jules

Roger Pearse

Thank you for making these demands, and sharing your opinions.

Before posting further, may I suggest that you seek information from any university that offers courses in ancient history? At the moment, your comments are ignorant and foolish, and will remain so until you stop asserting as fact whatever bit of hearsay or imagination pops into your head.

Sorry if that sounds blunt, but you need to hear that. You've posted far too much nonsense far too confidently for anything else.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

2-J

It seems what is under dispute is not the conclusions of history, more how history is regarded ( the philosophy of history? meta-history? maybe just plain ol' epistemology?).

Two historians could draw the same conclusion based on the same historical method, but still disagree, on an epistomological level, about the nature of the conclusion drawn.

Whether the conclusions of ancient history (insofar as there is consensus on certain subjects) are 'facts' or 'speculation, to a greater or lesser extent' is not a question history concerns itself with. And you don't need to be a qualified historian to engage in debate on that issue.

patcleaver

The christian story is fiction. Jesus never existed. Christianity is just a pernicious superstition.

The Christians claimed that Pilot executed Christus, it was just anti-Roman propaganda spread by the Jews.

Tacitus knew it was just superstition because he could check the official Roman records and verify that Pilot did not execute anyone fitting the description of Jesus Christ.

The Romans had already put down an anti-Roman messianic revolt. They thought the Jewish belief in a prophesized messiah who would defeat Rome and conquer the world was just pernicious superstition. Now this superstition was in Rome itself. No wonder Nero was pissed.

"Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men ... whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again ..."
-- Tacitus, Annals